Playing time expectations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is entitled Playing Time Expectations. So IMO, a key question might be, when do these genetics assert themselves? Should an 8 or 9 YO see significantly less time than a larger peer even if the child has a great soccer pedigree? Honestly, most coaches have NO idea which kids have soccer-playing parents. So what determines field time? First impression of talent, right? Which perpetuates itself because more field time leads to greater improvement. This is not to say that travel teams should be totally equal. But this IS to say that potential cannot be assumed at these early ages, and there should be at least a 50 percent game minimum, along with position switching, until age 12 or so.

Yes our experience is that the reduced playing time based on size starts very young in some places with bad coaches. At U9/U10 the child might play slightly less or not start but by the time it's U11 or U12 they may sit out entire games. Again, this is with BAD coaches. We have seen clumsy big kids who can't kick a ball get put in much of the game because coaches just assume they are better. The small kid has to prove he's better. The lack of playing time builds up and can lead to discouragement. It also makes it feel like less of a team. My child is not big, not small but we don't like the coach's and club's attitude about this so we're leaving. A few teammates have already left. This is at a big club that stresses player development. What a joke.

BRYC loses another one.

OP says club stresses player development, it most be one of those clubs in the NPL league.

They all SAY they stress player development. Even the ones that are kick and run winning in the younger years.

As my kids moved onto teams that have played in the first division of many top leagues...the thing we noticed immediately was how much bigger the players on these teams were. In some Clubs, you can literally identify the top team by size alone. We have been at one Club which was inverse...the lowest team had the biggest players which was the only time I had ever see that.

[Anonymous]

yes, Arlington is one of the worst offenders with size on the red team in U9-U12 at least

[Anonymous]

As my kids moved onto teams that have played in the first division of many top leagues...the thing we noticed immediately was how much bigger the players on these teams were. In some Clubs, you can literally identify the top team by size alone. We have been at one Club which was inverse...the lowest team had the biggest players which was the only time I had ever see that.

Alexandria, by any chance? My son's year, their top team has tiny kids, but they are incredibly good players. My son is on white, which has bigger and taller kids, but not as good.

[Anonymous]

My conclusion is that people will never be happy. My son plays for a travel soccer team that does not do equal playing time at his age group. People complain. He does a futsal team for another club that does do equal playing time (because they don't care if they win, the point is to develop players), and as soon as people's kids are switched out for another player, they complain because their kid was doing so well and helping the team win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious what parent expectations are regarding playing time for your kids. Is it ‘win or die’ even at age 10 with kids riding the bench for extended periods of time, or is complete equity no matter what? I’m assuming most parents are somewhere in between and I’m most specifically curious what’s the minimum you’d be okay with and how long you think kids should be sitting while they’re out.

In my specific situation, I’ve got a young kid on a team that’s not the top team for that age group. What’s a reasonable expectation?

my expectations :

the need to win is a built in byproduct of our american pay to play system and will affect balance of play no matter where you go. It is perhaps not the best way, but in our current system, it is a reality, so I expect it.

the younger the age, the broader the development net should be. This should tend towards more balanced playing time at younger ages

the higher the level of play, the more the balance is shifted to the kids the coach deems have the greatest potential. Sometimes coaches don't get it right, and focus on kids who have matured earlier physically, vs those with true potential.

certain positions may be more biased than others. defenders are more critical to team success so better defenders play a higher percentage of time. the higher the level of play, the more this becomes a factor

some game situations may change the balance of playing time. Again, the higher the level, the more emphasis there is on winning so the more this becomes a factor.

Anyone agree with this? Many people say its because they run less and burn less energy. A PP said defenders need to play most of the game to learn particular position correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Defenders get more playing time for a variety of reasons, including:

a) they usually don't run as far during the course of a game and have more 'rest' time to recover.
b) a good chemistry in defense can really make a team solid, and mulitple substitutions in defense can lead to 'bonehead' errors where players lose track of who their position.
c) some kids specifically don't want to play defense (or are really really bad at it).
d) defenders making major errors lead to goals. Midfielders or strikers making errors lead to turnovers or wide shots, but it usually isn't game-changing.

But this all depends on the team. Some coaches play their best and strongest in midfield and have defenders as basically a 'safety' should one get past. Others play their strongest players in defense and let the kids up front make mistakes confident that not much will get past the kids in the back.

But at U10, I would agree that kids should be rotated around in a variety of positions. I also know from experience this doesn't always happen.

Which philosophy works best at u9-u11?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defenders get more playing time for a variety of reasons, including:

a) they usually don't run as far during the course of a game and have more 'rest' time to recover.
b) a good chemistry in defense can really make a team solid, and mulitple substitutions in defense can lead to 'bonehead' errors where players lose track of who their position.
c) some kids specifically don't want to play defense (or are really really bad at it).
d) defenders making major errors lead to goals. Midfielders or strikers making errors lead to turnovers or wide shots, but it usually isn't game-changing.

But this all depends on the team. Some coaches play their best and strongest in midfield and have defenders as basically a 'safety' should one get past. Others play their strongest players in defense and let the kids up front make mistakes confident that not much will get past the kids in the back.

But at U10, I would agree that kids should be rotated around in a variety of positions. I also know from experience this doesn't always happen.

Which philosophy works best at u9-u11?

Individual play matters more at younger ages when you are trying to develop talent. You just try to give them their positions and a game plan, but one kid can dribble the small field at that age. U12/13 is when you start looking more at the big picture. Who is good at doing what and can we develop them in that spot. It still isn't about winning so much as putting the player in their best chance to succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defenders get more playing time for a variety of reasons, including:

a) they usually don't run as far during the course of a game and have more 'rest' time to recover.
b) a good chemistry in defense can really make a team solid, and mulitple substitutions in defense can lead to 'bonehead' errors where players lose track of who their position.
c) some kids specifically don't want to play defense (or are really really bad at it).
d) defenders making major errors lead to goals. Midfielders or strikers making errors lead to turnovers or wide shots, but it usually isn't game-changing.

But this all depends on the team. Some coaches play their best and strongest in midfield and have defenders as basically a 'safety' should one get past. Others play their strongest players in defense and let the kids up front make mistakes confident that not much will get past the kids in the back.

But at U10, I would agree that kids should be rotated around in a variety of positions. I also know from experience this doesn't always happen.

Which philosophy works best at u9-u11?

Individual play matters more at younger ages when you are trying to develop talent. You just try to give them their positions and a game plan, but one kid can dribble the small field at that age. U12/13 is when you start looking more at the big picture. Who is good at doing what and can we develop them in that spot. It still isn't about winning so much as putting the player in their best chance to succeed.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is entitled Playing Time Expectations. So IMO, a key question might be, when do these genetics assert themselves? Should an 8 or 9 YO see significantly less time than a larger peer even if the child has a great soccer pedigree? Honestly, most coaches have NO idea which kids have soccer-playing parents. So what determines field time? First impression of talent, right? Which perpetuates itself because more field time leads to greater improvement. This is not to say that travel teams should be totally equal. But this IS to say that potential cannot be assumed at these early ages, and there should be at least a 50 percent game minimum, along with position switching, until age 12 or so.

The kids do practice together several times a week, where they scrimmage and do other drills. Practice is where a player will get on the coach's radar, and then when he gets put into the game and is given a chance to show what he can do, then he's got to play well. I don't think that unequal playing time during a game -- say, one player gets 1/3 of the game while a another player gets 2/3 of the game -- is going to be the difference in the development of the players; the kid playing 1/3 and practicing several times per week has ample opportunity to show why the team would benefit from him moving up in the ranks and playing more game time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious what parent expectations are regarding playing time for your kids. Is it ‘win or die’ even at age 10 with kids riding the bench for extended periods of time, or is complete equity no matter what? I’m assuming most parents are somewhere in between and I’m most specifically curious what’s the minimum you’d be okay with and how long you think kids should be sitting while they’re out.

In my specific situation, I’ve got a young kid on a team that’s not the top team for that age group. What’s a reasonable expectation?

my expectations :

the need to win is a built in byproduct of our american pay to play system and will affect balance of play no matter where you go. It is perhaps not the best way, but in our current system, it is a reality, so I expect it.

the younger the age, the broader the development net should be. This should tend towards more balanced playing time at younger ages

the higher the level of play, the more the balance is shifted to the kids the coach deems have the greatest potential. Sometimes coaches don't get it right, and focus on kids who have matured earlier physically, vs those with true potential.

certain positions may be more biased than others. defenders are more critical to team success so better defenders play a higher percentage of time. the higher the level of play, the more this becomes a factor

some game situations may change the balance of playing time. Again, the higher the level, the more emphasis there is on winning so the more this becomes a factor.

Anyone agree with this? Many people say its because they run less and burn less energy. A PP said defenders need to play most of the game to learn particular position correctly.

DD is a keeper and she definitely prefers one of two girls on the field when she plays. She's told the coach jokingly, but one of those two is usually on at all times (one is a center back, one is a defensive center mid)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A technical player that is small, weak and slow will get destroyed by the fast/stronger defenders.

Hence, small skilled players needs to be moderately quick/fast, and somewhat strong too. Intelligence is important but having the skills and smarts without the speed/quickness/strength is very limiting.

Absolutely. But in real life, the smaller skilled player won't be encouraged to learn how to use his or her body and make intelligent choices because the player will be bumped down to the B or C team or remain on the A team and won't play at all. Trust me.

Not so; my son is definitely on the smaller end of the spectrum, but that just means he's forced to work harder on his technical skills and decision-making abilities to compete with the larger boys. In his case, he has the drive and the love of the game to work hard at it. Without that drive, and without those technical skills, he wouldn't be able to compete as well as he does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious what parent expectations are regarding playing time for your kids. Is it ‘win or die’ even at age 10 with kids riding the bench for extended periods of time, or is complete equity no matter what? I’m assuming most parents are somewhere in between and I’m most specifically curious what’s the minimum you’d be okay with and how long you think kids should be sitting while they’re out.

In my specific situation, I’ve got a young kid on a team that’s not the top team for that age group. What’s a reasonable expectation?

my expectations :

the need to win is a built in byproduct of our american pay to play system and will affect balance of play no matter where you go. It is perhaps not the best way, but in our current system, it is a reality, so I expect it.

the younger the age, the broader the development net should be. This should tend towards more balanced playing time at younger ages

the higher the level of play, the more the balance is shifted to the kids the coach deems have the greatest potential. Sometimes coaches don't get it right, and focus on kids who have matured earlier physically, vs those with true potential.

certain positions may be more biased than others. defenders are more critical to team success so better defenders play a higher percentage of time. the higher the level of play, the more this becomes a factor

some game situations may change the balance of playing time. Again, the higher the level, the more emphasis there is on winning so the more this becomes a factor.

Anyone agree with this? Many people say its because they run less and burn less energy. A PP said defenders need to play most of the game to learn particular position correctly.

No it’s not true. Watch any game they just run a lot less. The higher level of play midfield becomes more and more important. When you put a team together you start in the midfield and build out from there. Defender is not the most demanding position and the positioning is pretty simple.

Watch any game. It always turns into a midfield battle. If your midfield controls the game you are playing on the offense side of the field. If they are equally match it can be a back and forth game and if your midfield loses your defenders will be under constant pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A technical player that is small, weak and slow will get destroyed by the fast/stronger defenders.

Hence, small skilled players needs to be moderately quick/fast, and somewhat strong too. Intelligence is important but having the skills and smarts without the speed/quickness/strength is very limiting.

Absolutely. But in real life, the smaller skilled player won't be encouraged to learn how to use his or her body and make intelligent choices because the player will be bumped down to the B or C team or remain on the A team and won't play at all. Trust me.

Not so; my son is definitely on the smaller end of the spectrum, but that just means he's forced to work harder on his technical skills and decision-making abilities to compete with the larger boys. In his case, he has the drive and the love of the game to work hard at it. Without that drive, and without those technical skills, he wouldn't be able to compete as well as he does.

PP here. I don't necessarily disagree, but it takes more drive and determination for a smaller player.

Out of curiosity, how old is your player?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is entitled Playing Time Expectations. So IMO, a key question might be, when do these genetics assert themselves? Should an 8 or 9 YO see significantly less time than a larger peer even if the child has a great soccer pedigree? Honestly, most coaches have NO idea which kids have soccer-playing parents. So what determines field time? First impression of talent, right? Which perpetuates itself because more field time leads to greater improvement. This is not to say that travel teams should be totally equal. But this IS to say that potential cannot be assumed at these early ages, and there should be at least a 50 percent game minimum, along with position switching, until age 12 or so.

The kids do practice together several times a week, where they scrimmage and do other drills. Practice is where a player will get on the coach's radar, and then when he gets put into the game and is given a chance to show what he can do, then he's got to play well. I don't think that unequal playing time during a game -- say, one player gets 1/3 of the game while a another player gets 2/3 of the game -- is going to be the difference in the development of the players; the kid playing 1/3 and practicing several times per week has ample opportunity to show why the team would benefit from him moving up in the ranks and playing more game time.

I disagree--games are different beasts than training sessions. You are basically saying at younger ages that for some kids that it's okay for them to get a shorter leash (1/3 of a game). This does not afford that player as many chances to correct errors/implement a different strategy after the coach has yanked them off and told them what they could do in situation A or B, while the other kids are basically getting a free pass and twice the amount of time to make an indelible positive impact on the match and also can play freely knowing they are going to play no matter what. This is exacerbated further when the 1/3 playing time person comes off the bench. How often do you see teams where it takes them 10 minutes (one third or more of the first half at U12 and below) to "wake up" and grow into the match. The subs who get half as much PT are then expected to come in and in less time "wake up" and grow into the match?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A technical player that is small, weak and slow will get destroyed by the fast/stronger defenders.

Hence, small skilled players needs to be moderately quick/fast, and somewhat strong too. Intelligence is important but having the skills and smarts without the speed/quickness/strength is very limiting.

Absolutely. But in real life, the smaller skilled player won't be encouraged to learn how to use his or her body and make intelligent choices because the player will be bumped down to the B or C team or remain on the A team and won't play at all. Trust me.

Not so; my son is definitely on the smaller end of the spectrum, but that just means he's forced to work harder on his technical skills and decision-making abilities to compete with the larger boys. In his case, he has the drive and the love of the game to work hard at it. Without that drive, and without those technical skills, he wouldn't be able to compete as well as he does.

PP here. I don't necessarily disagree, but it takes more drive and determination for a smaller player.

Out of curiosity, how old is your player?

He's 10. He has older brothers so that definitely accelerated his technical skills, and toughened him up to be able to handle playing with/against larger kids -- he's not phased by it. Still, to play as well as he does takes drive beyond just competing with your older brothers. Having gone through travel soccer with my older boys, I'm experienced now to understand now that *this* kid really loves soccer, whereas my other boys simply "like" soccer. Some of my kids play travel, some play rec, and some play for their school.