Benching players

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Developmental teams are basically rec teams around here - several other sports associations even call their rec leagues their “developmental” leagues. I think you’re trying to draw a line where there is not one. If you’re playing on the CHVRA circuit, even at a low level, you’re on a travel or club team, not a rec or house or “developmental” team.

Should a player sit an entire tournament on the bench when they’ve made the team? I think no, but they need to ask their coach what to work on to get in the lineup.

Are you telling me that there is no difference between MOCO-1 and MOCO-3 because they both participate in tournaments? I feel like you refuse to draw a line where clearly there is one. My understanding is that MOCO is trying to play all their players on their bottom teams, so I only brought them up because most people can relate to this example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developmental teams are basically rec teams around here - several other sports associations even call their rec leagues their “developmental” leagues. I think you’re trying to draw a line where there is not one. If you’re playing on the CHVRA circuit, even at a low level, you’re on a travel or club team, not a rec or house or “developmental” team.

Should a player sit an entire tournament on the bench when they’ve made the team? I think no, but they need to ask their coach what to work on to get in the lineup.

Are you telling me that there is no difference between MOCO-1 and MOCO-3 because they both participate in tournaments? I feel like you refuse to draw a line where clearly there is one. My understanding is that MOCO is trying to play all their players on their bottom teams, so I only brought them up because most people can relate to this example.

Sure there is a difference. But the point has been made multiple times in this thread is that even teams that don't have experienced players or high expectations for winning, still feel pressure to try to win matches. Giving playing time to everyone often means coaches have to decide to put a weaker player into a match at a time where it will likely impact the outcome. No matter the expectations set for the team at the beginning of the season, when that time comes and the team loses that match, there will be parents annoyed that a weaker player was put in instead of playing to win. Winning isn't everything but losing every match is not much fun, and players and parents can get discouraged when a season goes that way.

[Anonymous]

The difference for us has always been whether you have to try out or not. Tryouts = “travel” or “club” sports. No tryout = rec or developmental and fairly equal playing time (or at least getting each player into a game).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developmental teams are basically rec teams around here - several other sports associations even call their rec leagues their “developmental” leagues. I think you’re trying to draw a line where there is not one. If you’re playing on the CHVRA circuit, even at a low level, you’re on a travel or club team, not a rec or house or “developmental” team.

Should a player sit an entire tournament on the bench when they’ve made the team? I think no, but they need to ask their coach what to work on to get in the lineup.

Are you telling me that there is no difference between MOCO-1 and MOCO-3 because they both participate in tournaments? I feel like you refuse to draw a line where clearly there is one. My understanding is that MOCO is trying to play all their players on their bottom teams, so I only brought them up because most people can relate to this example.

Sure there is a difference. But the point has been made multiple times in this thread is that even teams that don't have experienced players or high expectations for winning, still feel pressure to try to win matches. Giving playing time to everyone often means coaches have to decide to put a weaker player into a match at a time where it will likely impact the outcome. No matter the expectations set for the team at the beginning of the season, when that time comes and the team loses that match, there will be parents annoyed that a weaker player was put in instead of playing to win. Winning isn't everything but losing every match is not much fun, and players and parents can get discouraged when a season goes that way.

A point is not necessarily correct just because it is made multiple times. If a player is so bad that she can be blamed for losing every single game, the club should have not extended her an offer in the first place. <- This is another point that has been made multiple times on this thread and it is more reasonable. Robbing a family out of thousands of dollars then keeping the player on the bench for one season is not fair no matter what. Do Metro Travel players knowingly sign up for that? So be it if that's their choice. But it's not ok if the club makes an offer on a bottom team, where the family has no way of knowing that the player will be benched for a season. It is easy to blame the parents and the players for poor decisions at tryouts, but I am not buying it.

[Anonymous]

A point is not necessarily correct just because it is made multiple times. If a player is so bad that she can be blamed for losing every single game, the club should have not extended her an offer in the first place. <- This is another point that has been made multiple times on this thread and it is more reasonable. Robbing a family out of thousands of dollars then keeping the player on the bench for one season is not fair no matter what. Do Metro Travel players knowingly sign up for that? So be it if that's their choice. But it's not ok if the club makes an offer on a bottom team, where the family has no way of knowing that the player will be benched for a season. It is easy to blame the parents and the players for poor decisions at tryouts, but I am not buying it.

When considering playing time, think about:

Club playing time commitments: Did the club tell you that "playing time is earned?" or there is no guarantee of playing time? Or did they tell you the intent was to play everyone? Did they ever use the words equal time?
Team competitive level: What level is the club competing at? Open-level: either National open or regional open with national upper level (USA/Liberty). Club-level: regional club level with national lower level (American) or just regional club.
Team performance level: Does the team typically win its matches? Where is it in the rankings (top 10%, 25%, 50%, etc)?
Developmental: Does the club explicitly state they have developmental teams? If so, is your team specifically identified as one? And what does "developmental" mean?

The combination of these three areas make discussions about playing time/benching a lot easier. They also give you the questions to ask before the season starts so you get a clear understanding and have the facts on your side in the even that you do run into playing time issues.

Every club has different answers to these questions. Most national/regional open level teams don't have any playing time guarantees but they operate on a spectrum from Metro/Paramount (we play our best, if you sit out an entire weekend so be it) to MVSA & MOCO 1s (we generally play everyone, but not equally). Those teams are also all in the top 10% of rankings generally and at that level you generally need to play your best players the most to stay there. But even in that group there is a wide range of playing time philosophy.

Being on the "bottom" team at a club doesn't really tell you anything about the level of play or the general club approach to playing time. There are lots of "top" teams at other clubs that don't reach the performance or competition level of the bottom teams at some clubs.

In this case it sounds like there is a disconnect between the club, coach, player and parent expectations.

Most parents have higher playtime expectations for their players than the players do for themselves. Sometimes its due to a lack of understanding of how rotations work (why is my middle hitter only playing half of the match?), sometimes its due to explicit comparison of their player to others on the team (my DD is better than the other player in her position, why doesn't she play) and sometimes its a "I'm paying for this, why isn't my DD playing" mindset. As with many things in life, when money gets involved opinions and conversations can be especially heated.

Most teams have a few who are very good players (compared to their teammates), many who are in the middle and a few who are clearly below the average level of the team. This happens on every team at every level of play and impacts competitive and developmental teams equally. There is a high chance that sometime in your club career you will be in all three situations.

No team has a player who is "so bad she can be blamed for losing every single game." But every team does have players that are "below average" for their team -- that's how averages work. If you didn't get answers to the questions above before the you accepted an offer then its highly likely there was a disconnect between the club's expectations and yours. There is no easy way to resolve it after the fact especially if you are already on the lowest team in a club. Regardless, you should expect the coach to be working with your player to improve her, giving her the same amount of time in practice that everyone else gets. 90%+ of court time comes in practice, and that's generally what you are really paying for in club volleyball.

Lots of posters on this board would have great advice, but giving us a bit more about the competitive level, your DD relative ability level to her teams, etc. would help. We don't even need the club name or team (and generally suggest not doing that because its really easy to trace back),

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is playing her 1st year of club (non-travel) and has been benched at both tournaments her team attended so far this year. She doesn't know why and we've had zero communication with the coach. How/when should we raise this as an issue?

Update?? ^^

There are 3+ pages of replies and comments since you posted.

Update please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A point is not necessarily correct just because it is made multiple times. If a player is so bad that she can be blamed for losing every single game, the club should have not extended her an offer in the first place. <- This is another point that has been made multiple times on this thread and it is more reasonable. Robbing a family out of thousands of dollars then keeping the player on the bench for one season is not fair no matter what. Do Metro Travel players knowingly sign up for that? So be it if that's their choice. But it's not ok if the club makes an offer on a bottom team, where the family has no way of knowing that the player will be benched for a season. It is easy to blame the parents and the players for poor decisions at tryouts, but I am not buying it.

When considering playing time, think about:

Club playing time commitments: Did the club tell you that "playing time is earned?" or there is no guarantee of playing time? Or did they tell you the intent was to play everyone? Did they ever use the words equal time?
Team competitive level: What level is the club competing at? Open-level: either National open or regional open with national upper level (USA/Liberty). Club-level: regional club level with national lower level (American) or just regional club.
Team performance level: Does the team typically win its matches? Where is it in the rankings (top 10%, 25%, 50%, etc)?
Developmental: Does the club explicitly state they have developmental teams? If so, is your team specifically identified as one? And what does "developmental" mean?

The combination of these three areas make discussions about playing time/benching a lot easier. They also give you the questions to ask before the season starts so you get a clear understanding and have the facts on your side in the even that you do run into playing time issues.

Every club has different answers to these questions. Most national/regional open level teams don't have any playing time guarantees but they operate on a spectrum from Metro/Paramount (we play our best, if you sit out an entire weekend so be it) to MVSA & MOCO 1s (we generally play everyone, but not equally). Those teams are also all in the top 10% of rankings generally and at that level you generally need to play your best players the most to stay there. But even in that group there is a wide range of playing time philosophy.

Being on the "bottom" team at a club doesn't really tell you anything about the level of play or the general club approach to playing time. There are lots of "top" teams at other clubs that don't reach the performance or competition level of the bottom teams at some clubs.

In this case it sounds like there is a disconnect between the club, coach, player and parent expectations.

Most parents have higher playtime expectations for their players than the players do for themselves. Sometimes its due to a lack of understanding of how rotations work (why is my middle hitter only playing half of the match?), sometimes its due to explicit comparison of their player to others on the team (my DD is better than the other player in her position, why doesn't she play) and sometimes its a "I'm paying for this, why isn't my DD playing" mindset. As with many things in life, when money gets involved opinions and conversations can be especially heated.

Most teams have a few who are very good players (compared to their teammates), many who are in the middle and a few who are clearly below the average level of the team. This happens on every team at every level of play and impacts competitive and developmental teams equally. There is a high chance that sometime in your club career you will be in all three situations.

No team has a player who is "so bad she can be blamed for losing every single game." But every team does have players that are "below average" for their team -- that's how averages work. If you didn't get answers to the questions above before the you accepted an offer then its highly likely there was a disconnect between the club's expectations and yours. There is no easy way to resolve it after the fact especially if you are already on the lowest team in a club. Regardless, you should expect the coach to be working with your player to improve her, giving her the same amount of time in practice that everyone else gets. 90%+ of court time comes in practice, and that's generally what you are really paying for in club volleyball.

Lots of posters on this board would have great advice, but giving us a bit more about the competitive level, your DD relative ability level to her teams, etc. would help. We don't even need the club name or team (and generally suggest not doing that because its really easy to trace back),

I think I know how averages work, but since you brought up stats, we can go more in depth. You definitely have a distributions of skills and abilities in any team and nobody disputes that. You can do the stats for each player and come up with solid numbers of who is at the top, who is average, and who is below the average. You can even point out to a p-value that makes this one player unfit to make it on the court, so you have a good reason to bench her. But there is a bigger issue here: why didn't the club realize that during the tryouts? Why did the club make an offer to this player if her skills and abilities are so poor compared to the rest of the team? Most players new to a club have no idea what team they are going to end up on until they see their teammates at practice. How would they know that they are at the bottom with p-values that give them no chance to see the court?

[Anonymous]

I think I know how averages work, but since you brought up stats, we can go more in depth. You definitely have a distributions of skills and abilities in any team and nobody disputes that. You can do the stats for each player and come up with solid numbers of who is at the top, who is average, and who is below the average. You can even point out to a p-value that makes this one player unfit to make it on the court, so you have a good reason to bench her. But there is a bigger issue here: why didn't the club realize that during the tryouts? Why did the club make an offer to this player if her skills and abilities are so poor compared to the rest of the team? Most players new to a club have no idea what team they are going to end up on until they see their teammates at practice. How would they know that they are at the bottom with p-values that give them no chance to see the court?

Presumably you know how crazy tryouts for club usually are every year, given that you're commenting on this forum. There are also any number of reasons for that. Sometimes a player has a really strong showing at tryouts that it turns out is out of character for their usual performance. Sometimes they don't get the best evaluation because they have more than 100 girls to sift through. Sometimes the club wants each roster to have a certain number of players (typically 12), and depending on the age/location of the club and their tryouts, they might have to work pretty far down the waitlist because players took other offers and the coaches had to scramble. I have mostly coached 14s and 15s in my club career, and three different years have not been able to fill out my roster until the "everybody is a free agent" portion of the tryout window, simply because that's how much movement there is in that age range in general (the most popular years to try club) and my area in particular. As I said earlier, I personally DO attempt to play everyone in every pool play match, but playing time expectations are also something I lay out before our first practice (as every coach should). Still, I can imagine a lot of variables from tryouts, practices, and tournaments that could definitely affect an athlete's court time depending on the coach, and the OP never really shared anything that would eliminate even some of the more obvious options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think I know how averages work, but since you brought up stats, we can go more in depth. You definitely have a distributions of skills and abilities in any team and nobody disputes that. You can do the stats for each player and come up with solid numbers of who is at the top, who is average, and who is below the average. You can even point out to a p-value that makes this one player unfit to make it on the court, so you have a good reason to bench her. But there is a bigger issue here: why didn't the club realize that during the tryouts? Why did the club make an offer to this player if her skills and abilities are so poor compared to the rest of the team? Most players new to a club have no idea what team they are going to end up on until they see their teammates at practice. How would they know that they are at the bottom with p-values that give them no chance to see the court?

Presumably you know how crazy tryouts for club usually are every year, given that you're commenting on this forum. There are also any number of reasons for that. Sometimes a player has a really strong showing at tryouts that it turns out is out of character for their usual performance. Sometimes they don't get the best evaluation because they have more than 100 girls to sift through. Sometimes the club wants each roster to have a certain number of players (typically 12), and depending on the age/location of the club and their tryouts, they might have to work pretty far down the waitlist because players took other offers and the coaches had to scramble. I have mostly coached 14s and 15s in my club career, and three different years have not been able to fill out my roster until the "everybody is a free agent" portion of the tryout window, simply because that's how much movement there is in that age range in general (the most popular years to try club) and my area in particular. As I said earlier, I personally DO attempt to play everyone in every pool play match, but playing time expectations are also something I lay out before our first practice (as every coach should). Still, I can imagine a lot of variables from tryouts, practices, and tournaments that could definitely affect an athlete's court time depending on the coach, and the OP never really shared anything that would eliminate even some of the more obvious options.

So you want people to believe that a player can have such a strong showing at tryouts that she can fool the coaches, but then she is so bad when the season starts that she needs to be benched. And that sounds totally reasonable to you and in no way you are trying to shift the blame from the poor club decisions during tryouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think I know how averages work, but since you brought up stats, we can go more in depth. You definitely have a distributions of skills and abilities in any team and nobody disputes that. You can do the stats for each player and come up with solid numbers of who is at the top, who is average, and who is below the average. You can even point out to a p-value that makes this one player unfit to make it on the court, so you have a good reason to bench her. But there is a bigger issue here: why didn't the club realize that during the tryouts? Why did the club make an offer to this player if her skills and abilities are so poor compared to the rest of the team? Most players new to a club have no idea what team they are going to end up on until they see their teammates at practice. How would they know that they are at the bottom with p-values that give them no chance to see the court?

Presumably you know how crazy tryouts for club usually are every year, given that you're commenting on this forum. There are also any number of reasons for that. Sometimes a player has a really strong showing at tryouts that it turns out is out of character for their usual performance. Sometimes they don't get the best evaluation because they have more than 100 girls to sift through. Sometimes the club wants each roster to have a certain number of players (typically 12), and depending on the age/location of the club and their tryouts, they might have to work pretty far down the waitlist because players took other offers and the coaches had to scramble. I have mostly coached 14s and 15s in my club career, and three different years have not been able to fill out my roster until the "everybody is a free agent" portion of the tryout window, simply because that's how much movement there is in that age range in general (the most popular years to try club) and my area in particular. As I said earlier, I personally DO attempt to play everyone in every pool play match, but playing time expectations are also something I lay out before our first practice (as every coach should). Still, I can imagine a lot of variables from tryouts, practices, and tournaments that could definitely affect an athlete's court time depending on the coach, and the OP never really shared anything that would eliminate even some of the more obvious options.

So you want people to believe that a player can have such a strong showing at tryouts that she can fool the coaches, but then she is so bad when the season starts that she needs to be benched. And that sounds totally reasonable to you and in no way you are trying to shift the blame from the poor club decisions during tryouts.

Not the PP, who honestly sounds like they were just trying to help.

The scenario you describe happens at every club and at every level of competition (not just developmental). Its common at the younger ages and up through U15 or so, less common at U16+. The younger the team and the more developmental the team is, the bigger the risk is for both the club and the family that a player that everyone hoped would be good ends up not as good.

If a club's only exposure to a player is at tryouts it is entirely possible the scenario you describe can occur and it happens more often than you would think. A less-skilled player can have a good day at tryouts and make a team or a very good player can have a bad day of tryouts and not make a team. It takes coaches with a lot of experience to identify good players having an off day and vice-versa on the basis of just a few minutes watching them over the course of a 90 minute tryout. And if a club is running multiple tryout times for the same age its even easier to get a "false positive" or a "false negative." That's one of the reasons everyone on these threads recommends attending at least one if not more of the fall clinics that most of the good clubs run (and every club that has teams in the top level of CHRVA). They help both the club and you figure out if your DD is right fort the club.

Is it a poor decision by the club to put a "bad" player onto a team above their level? It depends. On a developmental team clubs will often look for less skilled players that show either the physical traits necessary to compete and/or the ability to learn quickly. The physical traits are obvious in a tryout while the ability to learn is one of the hardest things to ascertain. There are lots of physically gifted players who make developmental teams and then struggle to become good volleyball players. And the physical gifts aren't just height, but quickness, arm swing speed, etc. Show up at tryouts and be tall for your age, or faster than the other players or show you can hit a ball hard and you have a good chance of making a team.

Then you get into practice and the coach discovers that while you can hit a ball hard, your footwork and timing are off and you are struggling to get better. Or you can get to the spot of a serve because you are quick but can't get your platform right to pass well. Or you are tall and can block when you get in front of the ball, but struggle to read the set and never get to the proper block location.

The best coaches in the region are very good at finding talent and developing it. But there aren't that many of those coaches and it takes years for them to develop both the eye for a future good player and the ability to train them up to their potential. Every coach has a story of the player who they thought would be great but they just couldn't get them to up to the level of the team.

Its terrible that it sounds like its happened to you this year. But it doesn't automatically mean the club was acting in bad faith or trying to "rob" you.

[Anonymous]

Clubs do it because they keep getting away with it.

There should be an offer made to the bench players that they will be a practice player. You pay a reduced fee because you don’t go to tournaments. That way the bench players and parents all know where they stand. No one is wasting time going to a tournament where they will never play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think I know how averages work, but since you brought up stats, we can go more in depth. You definitely have a distributions of skills and abilities in any team and nobody disputes that. You can do the stats for each player and come up with solid numbers of who is at the top, who is average, and who is below the average. You can even point out to a p-value that makes this one player unfit to make it on the court, so you have a good reason to bench her. But there is a bigger issue here: why didn't the club realize that during the tryouts? Why did the club make an offer to this player if her skills and abilities are so poor compared to the rest of the team? Most players new to a club have no idea what team they are going to end up on until they see their teammates at practice. How would they know that they are at the bottom with p-values that give them no chance to see the court?

Presumably you know how crazy tryouts for club usually are every year, given that you're commenting on this forum. There are also any number of reasons for that. Sometimes a player has a really strong showing at tryouts that it turns out is out of character for their usual performance. Sometimes they don't get the best evaluation because they have more than 100 girls to sift through. Sometimes the club wants each roster to have a certain number of players (typically 12), and depending on the age/location of the club and their tryouts, they might have to work pretty far down the waitlist because players took other offers and the coaches had to scramble. I have mostly coached 14s and 15s in my club career, and three different years have not been able to fill out my roster until the "everybody is a free agent" portion of the tryout window, simply because that's how much movement there is in that age range in general (the most popular years to try club) and my area in particular. As I said earlier, I personally DO attempt to play everyone in every pool play match, but playing time expectations are also something I lay out before our first practice (as every coach should). Still, I can imagine a lot of variables from tryouts, practices, and tournaments that could definitely affect an athlete's court time depending on the coach, and the OP never really shared anything that would eliminate even some of the more obvious options.

So you want people to believe that a player can have such a strong showing at tryouts that she can fool the coaches, but then she is so bad when the season starts that she needs to be benched. And that sounds totally reasonable to you and in no way you are trying to shift the blame from the poor club decisions during tryouts.

This is a very reasonable scenario, to be honest. Tryouts are only a few hours long. It’s not a matter of “fooling” coaches. It’s a matter of she had a tryout better than her most consistent performance, and also how she has come along, or not, since tryouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clubs do it because they keep getting away with it.

There should be an offer made to the bench players that they will be a practice player. You pay a reduced fee because you don’t go to tournaments. That way the bench players and parents all know where they stand. No one is wasting time going to a tournament where they will never play.

Huh? You can’t and would never send just your starters to a tournament.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clubs do it because they keep getting away with it.

There should be an offer made to the bench players that they will be a practice player. You pay a reduced fee because you don’t go to tournaments. That way the bench players and parents all know where they stand. No one is wasting time going to a tournament where they will never play.

You're in favor of telling a kid at the start of a six-month season that they're a second-class teammate who won't ever be able to improve enough to play in games? Good luck with that sales pitch. Even if Capitol Hill is a huge tournament with a lot of (potentially missed) opportunities to play (min. 7 matches), it doesn't even mark the halfway point of the club season.

[Anonymous]

One of the original posters here… my daughter has ADHD (which has been disclosed to her coaches) but she more recently was diagnosed with Autism (Pathological Demand Avoidance). As her mother, I subsequently was diagnosed with Autism. We both are extremely high masking but she especially doesn’t do well with rules. Thinking this is hindering her club volleyball experience but reluctant to disclose due to stigma.