Playing time expectations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - great explanation!

The OP never took ownership for how to improve an admitted bottom roster skilled player either. The OP simply wants more playing time for their kid without acknowledging the correlation with improvement and playing time.

OP, you don't need to take ownership for your child's alleged lack of skill. That's nonsense. If you child loves playing and works hard, the skill will come. Having been down this road with three kids, each at a different level, do what you can to nurture the love and put your son in a situation where he can play and be happy.

If you expect more playing time on the current team, yes, your kid needs to improve. That is the whole point of travel sports. IF you just want your kid to play then without risk of minutes then look into rec or seek a lower level team.

Isn’t Travel really just the new rec league? I get the earn your spot approach at ECNL/DA level, but for travel teams even playing time should be the goal. Rec leagues have been gutted so much that if you want to have some chance of playing a match on the weekend, you need to be on a travel team.

My 3 kids had great rec experiences at different ages. Sounds like you were at a bad club.

[Anonymous]

You can certainly change it up, but in my experience, putting in a different kid who is weaker at the position is unlikely to change the tide.


Change the tide of what? THAT game in immediate short term? or the long term tide of a team's dynamic over many games and season?

Couple potential reasons why that center mid doesn't get changed.

* center mid can't play any other position
* "different" kid is weaker in that spot because no one else gets a significant chance at center mid
* "different" kid is better center mid, but coach can't take the potential fall out

Better to not be exposed, right?

All I can say is that my son's coach recently had their team scrimmage a team two levels up. When everyone was in their best position, the team didn't look bad - the game was close. As soon as he rotated people out to their less than ideal position, things fell apart and the team got clobbered. There's tons of ways to give players chances to develop in other positions - scrimmages during practice, games where the team is already ahead. But I don't know of ANY travel coach who rotates kids to a less than idea position when the team is behind and the game is going poorly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - great explanation!

The OP never took ownership for how to improve an admitted bottom roster skilled player either. The OP simply wants more playing time for their kid without acknowledging the correlation with improvement and playing time.

OP, you don't need to take ownership for your child's alleged lack of skill. That's nonsense. If you child loves playing and works hard, the skill will come. Having been down this road with three kids, each at a different level, do what you can to nurture the love and put your son in a situation where he can play and be happy.

If you expect more playing time on the current team, yes, your kid needs to improve. That is the whole point of travel sports. IF you just want your kid to play then without risk of minutes then look into rec or seek a lower level team.

Isn’t Travel really just the new rec league? I get the earn your spot approach at ECNL/DA level, but for travel teams even playing time should be the goal. Rec leagues have been gutted so much that if you want to have some chance of playing a match on the weekend, you need to be on a travel team.

My 3 kids had great rec experiences at different ages. Sounds like you were at a bad club.

No, they are not necessarily at a bad club. Again, if you want more playing time then earn it. If you don't want to earn playing time or don't feel it is to be earned then play rec.

[Anonymous]

In this case, I’m well aware he’s in the bottom quarter of the team in performance, but I think playing 50% of a game where there’s only 8 kids in attendance seems low. I also don’t love that he never starts and kids who are late to warmups (ie show up at game time) start before him. And he’s on the bench for such long stretches (15+ minutes) that it seems like it would be hard to perform well after that.

Why would being on the bench for 15 minutes make it hard to perform? In my son's team, kids sometimes are on the bench for the first half of the game, and it doesn't seem to affect their ability to perform when they go in to play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - great explanation!

The OP never took ownership for how to improve an admitted bottom roster skilled player either. The OP simply wants more playing time for their kid without acknowledging the correlation with improvement and playing time.

OP, you don't need to take ownership for your child's alleged lack of skill. That's nonsense. If you child loves playing and works hard, the skill will come. Having been down this road with three kids, each at a different level, do what you can to nurture the love and put your son in a situation where he can play and be happy.

If you expect more playing time on the current team, yes, your kid needs to improve. That is the whole point of travel sports. IF you just want your kid to play then without risk of minutes then look into rec or seek a lower level team.

Isn’t Travel really just the new rec league? I get the earn your spot approach at ECNL/DA level, but for travel teams even playing time should be the goal. Rec leagues have been gutted so much that if you want to have some chance of playing a match on the weekend, you need to be on a travel team.

My 3 kids had great rec experiences at different ages. Sounds like you were at a bad club.

No, they are not necessarily at a bad club. Again, if you want more playing time then earn it. If you don't want to earn playing time or don't feel it is to be earned then play rec.

How do you earn it? By working hard in practice? Having a good attitude? Showing up on time . . . oh, not that one because that doesn't matter of the kid is good.

I don't advocate for pulling a kid as soon as any obstacle arises, but how you "earn" playing time is most often arbitrary. When the biggest kids on the team "earns" the most playing time, or the one with the strongest foot, the path for young players to "earn" playing time is not understandable enough to be motivating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - great explanation!

The OP never took ownership for how to improve an admitted bottom roster skilled player either. The OP simply wants more playing time for their kid without acknowledging the correlation with improvement and playing time.

OP, you don't need to take ownership for your child's alleged lack of skill. That's nonsense. If you child loves playing and works hard, the skill will come. Having been down this road with three kids, each at a different level, do what you can to nurture the love and put your son in a situation where he can play and be happy.

If you expect more playing time on the current team, yes, your kid needs to improve. That is the whole point of travel sports. IF you just want your kid to play then without risk of minutes then look into rec or seek a lower level team.

Isn’t Travel really just the new rec league? I get the earn your spot approach at ECNL/DA level, but for travel teams even playing time should be the goal. Rec leagues have been gutted so much that if you want to have some chance of playing a match on the weekend, you need to be on a travel team.

My 3 kids had great rec experiences at different ages. Sounds like you were at a bad club.

No, they are not necessarily at a bad club. Again, if you want more playing time then earn it. If you don't want to earn playing time or don't feel it is to be earned then play rec.

How do you earn it? By working hard in practice? Having a good attitude? Showing up on time . . . oh, not that one because that doesn't matter of the kid is good.

I don't advocate for pulling a kid as soon as any obstacle arises, but how you "earn" playing time is most often arbitrary. When the biggest kids on the team "earns" the most playing time, or the one with the strongest foot, the path for young players to "earn" playing time is not understandable enough to be motivating.

By working hard in practice?
Yes

Having a good attitude?
Yes

Showing up on time
Not the kids fault


how you "earn" playing time is most often arbitrary. When the biggest kids on the team "earns" the most playing time, or the one with the strongest foot, the path for young players to "earn" playing time is not understandable enough to be motivating
Well, that is the challenge isn't it.

Well that is exactly what the challenge is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland

So I hope you are agreeing that young players whose parents are paying for them to play should actually get to play.

Not quite. You are paying for training and agreeing that playing time is earned based on many factors. The parental expectation of a particular amount of playing time can't really be met. You can pay for Private School but can't possibly have any expectation of your kid getting all A's because you paid.

Other examples of playing time such as Belgium are being tossed around and while the 50/50 playing may be adhered to what isn't mentioned is a couple of things. Better talent identification that means better team composition of similarly skilled players as well as a more fluid academy style that allows players to move between teams as the skill levels may be more appropriate for kids advancing or for kids stagnating. But here, because we pay what we pay the expectation is that a kid does not moved from a A team to a B team in order to ensure more playing time. Drop a kid to a B team here mid season and the parents leave. So instead of finding a ore appropriate level within the club the kid will just see fewer minutes and either get better through training or they ultimately leave of their own accord.

Again, referring to the OPs own admission that their kid is admittedly at the bottom of the roster skill wise. The OP isn't asking how their player can get better in order to gain more minutes they simply feel their kid should get more minutes because it would be fair. And frankly that mindset is what Rec sports are about.

If you pay for a private school, you are not paying for your kid to get all A's but you aren't paying for them to sit out in the hall while other kids are actually in the classroom getting taught either.

With regard to Belgium, you are confusing 50% playing time with 50/50 playing time. It's not the same thing, unless you have a bloated roster with double the amount of players needed for the game format.

Let's say it's 7v7 with a roster of 11 (I'd prefer 10). At the end of the 1st quarter, 4 players come off (since you have 4 subs) but 3 stay on. Even if those 3 come off in the 3rd quarter, they have to come back on in the 4th, so they play 3/4 off the game. It's possible 1 of the other players who started on the bench and came on in the 2nd quarter could play the rest of the game. So out of the 11, 4 might play 3/4 of the game, and everyone else will play 1/2.

It's still competitive - not equal - but everyone gets a chance to play, contribute, and develop.

It's really hard to argue that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you pay for a private school, you are not paying for your kid to get all A's but you aren't paying for them to sit out in the hall while other kids are actually in the classroom getting taught either.

In private school you are paying for the training. Same in soccer.

The playing time and performance in soccer is your grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can certainly change it up, but in my experience, putting in a different kid who is weaker at the position is unlikely to change the tide.


Change the tide of what? THAT game in immediate short term? or the long term tide of a team's dynamic over many games and season?

Couple potential reasons why that center mid doesn't get changed.

* center mid can't play any other position
* "different" kid is weaker in that spot because no one else gets a significant chance at center mid
* "different" kid is better center mid, but coach can't take the potential fall out

Better to not be exposed, right?

All I can say is that my son's coach recently had their team scrimmage a team two levels up. When everyone was in their best position, the team didn't look bad - the game was close. As soon as he rotated people out to their less than ideal position, things fell apart and the team got clobbered. There's tons of ways to give players chances to develop in other positions - scrimmages during practice, games where the team is already ahead. But I don't know of ANY travel coach who rotates kids to a less than idea position when the team is behind and the game is going poorly.

I do. And sometimes it's a game changer. A couple of salient points: if things are going poorly routinely, then that's a problem anyways. And then you also are creating a catch 22. You can't rotate because it's going poorly and you don't want to make things worse. And you can't when it's going well because now you have to protect the win.

I have seen wingers and midfielders get moved to defense and it turn the game around. And I'm talking much older, like U15.

But let's remember here. We are talking U10. Are they never allowed to make mistakes, learn, try a new position? That's a little much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - great explanation!

The OP never took ownership for how to improve an admitted bottom roster skilled player either. The OP simply wants more playing time for their kid without acknowledging the correlation with improvement and playing time.

OP, you don't need to take ownership for your child's alleged lack of skill. That's nonsense. If you child loves playing and works hard, the skill will come. Having been down this road with three kids, each at a different level, do what you can to nurture the love and put your son in a situation where he can play and be happy.

If you expect more playing time on the current team, yes, your kid needs to improve. That is the whole point of travel sports. IF you just want your kid to play then without risk of minutes then look into rec or seek a lower level team.

Isn’t Travel really just the new rec league? I get the earn your spot approach at ECNL/DA level, but for travel teams even playing time should be the goal. Rec leagues have been gutted so much that if you want to have some chance of playing a match on the weekend, you need to be on a travel team.

My 3 kids had great rec experiences at different ages. Sounds like you were at a bad club.

No, they are not necessarily at a bad club. Again, if you want more playing time then earn it. If you don't want to earn playing time or don't feel it is to be earned then play rec.

How do you earn it? By working hard in practice? Having a good attitude? Showing up on time . . . oh, not that one because that doesn't matter of the kid is good.

I don't advocate for pulling a kid as soon as any obstacle arises, but how you "earn" playing time is most often arbitrary. When the biggest kids on the team "earns" the most playing time, or the one with the strongest foot, the path for young players to "earn" playing time is not understandable enough to be motivating.

First time a kid doesn't start over being late and that PARENT will do something different. It may not be the kid's fault, but they can influence their parents too. Trust me. And if a parent can't commit to being on time, then that's a problem too, but the parent's problem shouldn't become the team's problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland

So I hope you are agreeing that young players whose parents are paying for them to play should actually get to play.

Not quite. You are paying for training and agreeing that playing time is earned based on many factors. The parental expectation of a particular amount of playing time can't really be met. You can pay for Private School but can't possibly have any expectation of your kid getting all A's because you paid.

Other examples of playing time such as Belgium are being tossed around and while the 50/50 playing may be adhered to what isn't mentioned is a couple of things. Better talent identification that means better team composition of similarly skilled players as well as a more fluid academy style that allows players to move between teams as the skill levels may be more appropriate for kids advancing or for kids stagnating. But here, because we pay what we pay the expectation is that a kid does not moved from a A team to a B team in order to ensure more playing time. Drop a kid to a B team here mid season and the parents leave. So instead of finding a ore appropriate level within the club the kid will just see fewer minutes and either get better through training or they ultimately leave of their own accord.

Again, referring to the OPs own admission that their kid is admittedly at the bottom of the roster skill wise. The OP isn't asking how their player can get better in order to gain more minutes they simply feel their kid should get more minutes because it would be fair. And frankly that mindset is what Rec sports are about.

If you pay for a private school, you are not paying for your kid to get all A's but you aren't paying for them to sit out in the hall while other kids are actually in the classroom getting taught either.

With regard to Belgium, you are confusing 50% playing time with 50/50 playing time. It's not the same thing, unless you have a bloated roster with double the amount of players needed for the game format.

Let's say it's 7v7 with a roster of 11 (I'd prefer 10). At the end of the 1st quarter, 4 players come off (since you have 4 subs) but 3 stay on. Even if those 3 come off in the 3rd quarter, they have to come back on in the 4th, so they play 3/4 off the game. It's possible 1 of the other players who started on the bench and came on in the 2nd quarter could play the rest of the game. So out of the 11, 4 might play 3/4 of the game, and everyone else will play 1/2.

It's still competitive - not equal - but everyone gets a chance to play, contribute, and develop.

It's really hard to argue that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you pay for a private school, you are not paying for your kid to get all A's but you aren't paying for them to sit out in the hall while other kids are actually in the classroom getting taught either.

In private school you are paying for the training. Same in soccer.

The playing time and performance in soccer is your grade.

Wrong again. The grading system is not a good measure of training based on effort or even skill development. The most physically developed players are given extra extra credit, whether the effort is there or not. Physical performance is over valued and technical skill, commitment, effort, and attitude are undervalued. That's why kids drop out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland

So I hope you are agreeing that young players whose parents are paying for them to play should actually get to play.

Not quite. You are paying for training and agreeing that playing time is earned based on many factors. The parental expectation of a particular amount of playing time can't really be met. You can pay for Private School but can't possibly have any expectation of your kid getting all A's because you paid.

Other examples of playing time such as Belgium are being tossed around and while the 50/50 playing may be adhered to what isn't mentioned is a couple of things. Better talent identification that means better team composition of similarly skilled players as well as a more fluid academy style that allows players to move between teams as the skill levels may be more appropriate for kids advancing or for kids stagnating. But here, because we pay what we pay the expectation is that a kid does not moved from a A team to a B team in order to ensure more playing time. Drop a kid to a B team here mid season and the parents leave. So instead of finding a ore appropriate level within the club the kid will just see fewer minutes and either get better through training or they ultimately leave of their own accord.

Again, referring to the OPs own admission that their kid is admittedly at the bottom of the roster skill wise. The OP isn't asking how their player can get better in order to gain more minutes they simply feel their kid should get more minutes because it would be fair. And frankly that mindset is what Rec sports are about.

If you pay for a private school, you are not paying for your kid to get all A's but you aren't paying for them to sit out in the hall while other kids are actually in the classroom getting taught either.

With regard to Belgium, you are confusing 50% playing time with 50/50 playing time. It's not the same thing, unless you have a bloated roster with double the amount of players needed for the game format.

Let's say it's 7v7 with a roster of 11 (I'd prefer 10). At the end of the 1st quarter, 4 players come off (since you have 4 subs) but 3 stay on. Even if those 3 come off in the 3rd quarter, they have to come back on in the 4th, so they play 3/4 off the game. It's possible 1 of the other players who started on the bench and came on in the 2nd quarter could play the rest of the game. So out of the 11, 4 might play 3/4 of the game, and everyone else will play 1/2.

It's still competitive - not equal - but everyone gets a chance to play, contribute, and develop.

It's really hard to argue that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you pay for a private school, you are not paying for your kid to get all A's but you aren't paying for them to sit out in the hall while other kids are actually in the classroom getting taught either.

In private school you are paying for the training. Same in soccer.

The playing time and performance in soccer is your grade.

Wrong again. The grading system is not a good measure of training based on effort or even skill development. The most physically developed players are given extra extra credit, whether the effort is there or not. Physical performance is over valued and technical skill, commitment, effort, and attitude are undervalued. That's why kids drop out.

Just as grades are earned through studying and hard work so is playing time.

Athleticism can make a player more effective. Some kids are better students too. Skill can be developed in spite of all of that. Game IQ can be developed in spite of all of that as well. Work harder and in time things will get better. Blame the coach, blame other kids and nothing will improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - great explanation!

The OP never took ownership for how to improve an admitted bottom roster skilled player either. The OP simply wants more playing time for their kid without acknowledging the correlation with improvement and playing time.

OP, you don't need to take ownership for your child's alleged lack of skill. That's nonsense. If you child loves playing and works hard, the skill will come. Having been down this road with three kids, each at a different level, do what you can to nurture the love and put your son in a situation where he can play and be happy.

If you expect more playing time on the current team, yes, your kid needs to improve. That is the whole point of travel sports. IF you just want your kid to play then without risk of minutes then look into rec or seek a lower level team.

Isn’t Travel really just the new rec league? I get the earn your spot approach at ECNL/DA level, but for travel teams even playing time should be the goal. Rec leagues have been gutted so much that if you want to have some chance of playing a match on the weekend, you need to be on a travel team.

My 3 kids had great rec experiences at different ages. Sounds like you were at a bad club.

No, they are not necessarily at a bad club. Again, if you want more playing time then earn it. If you don't want to earn playing time or don't feel it is to be earned then play rec.

If pp's experience was their rec program couldn't even run games because it was somehow "gutted" than pp was at a bad club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can certainly change it up, but in my experience, putting in a different kid who is weaker at the position is unlikely to change the tide.


Change the tide of what? THAT game in immediate short term? or the long term tide of a team's dynamic over many games and season?

Couple potential reasons why that center mid doesn't get changed.

* center mid can't play any other position
* "different" kid is weaker in that spot because no one else gets a significant chance at center mid
* "different" kid is better center mid, but coach can't take the potential fall out

Better to not be exposed, right?

All I can say is that my son's coach recently had their team scrimmage a team two levels up. When everyone was in their best position, the team didn't look bad - the game was close. As soon as he rotated people out to their less than ideal position, things fell apart and the team got clobbered. There's tons of ways to give players chances to develop in other positions - scrimmages during practice, games where the team is already ahead. But I don't know of ANY travel coach who rotates kids to a less than idea position when the team is behind and the game is going poorly.

I do. And sometimes it's a game changer. A couple of salient points: if things are going poorly routinely, then that's a problem anyways. And then you also are creating a catch 22. You can't rotate because it's going poorly and you don't want to make things worse. And you can't when it's going well because now you have to protect the win.

I have seen wingers and midfielders get moved to defense and it turn the game around. And I'm talking much older, like U15.

But let's remember here. We are talking U10. Are they never allowed to make mistakes, learn, try a new position? That's a little much.

Exactly.

Again development versus winning a game. Everyone would like to have both on parallel upward trajectories.
A choice usually has to be made. And sometimes, more often than people want to admit, the other team is simply better.

EVERY coach worth salt should be rotating players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can certainly change it up, but in my experience, putting in a different kid who is weaker at the position is unlikely to change the tide.


Change the tide of what? THAT game in immediate short term? or the long term tide of a team's dynamic over many games and season?

Couple potential reasons why that center mid doesn't get changed.

* center mid can't play any other position
* "different" kid is weaker in that spot because no one else gets a significant chance at center mid
* "different" kid is better center mid, but coach can't take the potential fall out

Better to not be exposed, right?

All I can say is that my son's coach recently had their team scrimmage a team two levels up. When everyone was in their best position, the team didn't look bad - the game was close. As soon as he rotated people out to their less than ideal position, things fell apart and the team got clobbered. There's tons of ways to give players chances to develop in other positions - scrimmages during practice, games where the team is already ahead. But I don't know of ANY travel coach who rotates kids to a less than idea position when the team is behind and the game is going poorly.

Yeah... more often than not circumstance decides for you. Your coach should have 3-4 options for each position planned ahead of time.

[Anonymous]

I do. And sometimes it's a game changer. A couple of salient points: if things are going poorly routinely, then that's a problem anyways. And then you also are creating a catch 22. You can't rotate because it's going poorly and you don't want to make things worse. And you can't when it's going well because now you have to protect the win.

I have seen wingers and midfielders get moved to defense and it turn the game around. And I'm talking much older, like U15.

But let's remember here. We are talking U10. Are they never allowed to make mistakes, learn, try a new position? That's a little much.


Exactly.

Again development versus winning a game. Everyone would like to have both on parallel upward trajectories.
A choice usually has to be made. And sometimes, more often than people want to admit, the other team is simply better.

EVERY coach worth salt should be rotating players.

Within reason, I agree. My son has played left back all season (he's U12) and does it very well. He'd like a chance to play some of the midfield positions, and he never gets one. The time he has been moved forward, he's been placed at striker or wing. He's pretty ineffective at both of these positions. That rotation was probably pointless, but I don't understand why he can never try midfield, no matter how many times he asks.