Reply to Reflections from an aging soccer dad

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Reflections from an aging soccer dad"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]
There is so much wrong in this post. The intention is well and good but it is just misinformed.

[quote]To me, the model of "you are only on the team for a year and we re-evaluate every Spring" is stupid and makes kids and coaches disengage. There is no incentive to develop kids and no club commitment to their well being, at least for the vast majority of players who are not the top 5% of the talent pool on a real pathway to the top. For those tip-top kids, fine. But seriously, don't tell me that's how it works with elite European Academies or on professional teams, because that's not where most kids are or where they will end up.
[/quote]

No, your contract with the club is only for a year. The idea that kids are "cut" is just not true. Kids tryout and some do not make the higher team. That is not the same as being cut. Being placed on a lower team is also not being cut. Being cut is when you are told that there is no place for your kid in this club. Kids should be placed in an environment where they are matched appropriately skill wise. Do we consider kids cut from High School if they were not accepted into a particular Honors class? No.

[quote][b]Does it really matter of your team if kids who are not likely to play beyond high school is in the 2nd or 3rd division of EDP?[/b]  Is that important enough to cut kids who work hard but aren't quite there yet?  And the year to year commitment works both ways for bubble and non-bubble players - you may get cut from the team with your friends and/or your friends get cut from your team while you remain. It is especially bad for girls. With so many clubs out there, this idea that kids should be shifted around each year is detrimental to their development. I can't quite figure out if it is a matter of club survival, coaching ego, the need to please insane parents who are demanding wins, or just the fact that everyone else does it so it is too hard to be different, but I know it is not good. 
[/quote]

No it doesn't. If you are happy and the kid is happy, that is all that matters. As far as the "cut" comments, see above.

[quote]Not to sound too much like a soft soccer mom, but if more more clubs provided a more positive experience for players and had better communication with parents, there would be less moving around, which would promote stability in teams. Let's face it, the reason top teams are constantly taking in outside kids is because good players leave strong teams each year. Why is that?  Rather than accepting this as a given, why don't we explore this and try to change it?  [/quote]

THIS IS MOSTLY TRUE

[quote]Here is a crazy idea.  How about instead of posting the social media picture of the team winning a tournament (even if it is the lowest bracket), maybe clubs should brag about how long their players of been with the club or on a particular team, or show multiple B or C team players who worked their way to a top team, or quote parents who appreciate the regular, meaningful feedback their kids receive, regardless of what team they are on.  Instead of bragging that a team is going to be in whatever league is the most elite this year, show that your teams (at all levels) are placed in appropriate leagues with appropriate competition.  I would be more interested in learning more about player retention than wins and losses.[/quote]

No issue with clubs marketing retention, but in most cases retention is two way street. The kids that stay at a particular club are generally kids and parents who don't get their nose bent out of shape because their kid was placed on a lower team. These parents view that placement as being "Cut" so they leave in a huff. Clubs are just as frustrated when kids bolt because they don't like the particular placement and assessment that year. Parents fail to understand that kids develop at different rates and instead of being patient and a little humble they simply leave. This can mean that a particular kid might float back and forth between teams but they are not being cut.

[quote]Oh, and have fewer teams. I know it is so tempting to take thousand of dollars from idiotic parents just so they can brag about their kid's "travel team" in their social circles while their hapless kid goes through the motions with no real interest in getting better, but be better than that. If we had fewer travel teams, then maybe rec leagues would become a realistic option, both at younger ages and for those older kids feeling burnt out from years of tryouts, and driving up and down the East coast, and the pressure to win. For kids who love that competitive environment- fine, offer that. But we do NOT need to have 8 roughly equal teams in a 30 mile radius traveling all over beginning at 8 years old when they could just play each other. I'm not sure we need it at 15.  Instead of having low level C teams and giving them nothing at high cost, maybe offer pick ups or other ways that late bloomers can get playing time and improve their game.[/quote]

See NCSL, ODSL.

Pickup soccer is mostly organic so if it means that much to you try and start something yourself.

[quote]Finally, I have some personal observations about video games. To be sure, some of the attrition from organized sports is about lazy parents (I'm one of them) who don't do enough to limit video game time and stupid kids who get sucked in. But at the same time, I see why my kid has gotten sucked in.  Because video games are fun. Because he can find similarly interested gamers and play with them, thereby having control over his playing environment.  Because he sees how his practice makes him better (which is not always the case in club sports). [b]When he fails, he just starts another game, and is not berated by any adult or threatened with a demotion or time on the bench. [/b]Video games, to him, are safe and the environment more within his control. Club soccer is often unfair, random, influenced by politics. It involves more driving time than playing time. All of these factors make organized sports less fun and video games more appealing.[/quote]

You have clearly never really listened in on kids and their online chat during video games. I don't know that this ever happened after a kids soccer game:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/29/16830626/call-of-duty-swatting-prank-kansas-man-dead-police-shooting
[/quote]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post, and you make some valid points. Bad club policies and crazy parents both contribute to these problems.  I absolutely agree with you there.

I can offer a bit more information about the experience that my family had had and the experience of some of friends to rebut some of your points, particularly with regard to "cuts."  You are correct that a player dropped form an A to B or B to C team is not "cut" and movement makes send  if the new team is playing at the appropriate level.  I have no problem with that at all. In fact, I think that my kids might be B team players (although coaches say otherwise). They are good, but not top tier, committed, but not obsessed.  The problem is that some clubs' second teams are not the right environment for them either, due to the drop off in talent and commitment level.  A good B or C team is hard to find.  That's the problem. It isn't all about crazy parents.  Perhaps if the clubs were more selective, as I suggest, and had only one or two high quality teams, what you say would be true.  But trust me, olenty of kids quit playing soccer because they hate playing on their C team and have no hope of being promoted. As an example, I've recently seen a C team kid from another club (2 years on a really crappy C team) come onto an A team at another club and contribute right away. He's good.  Why wasn't he seen at the old club or promoted?  No one looks at the C team kids unless they are physically advanced for their age.  If you know any C team coaches who are concerned that some of their players are more advanced or committed to development than the rest of the team and try to do something about it, tell me where that is. The incentive is to get top players from elsewhere.

Most parents I know are happy to have their kids on a B or C team if the level of competition is appropriate. I would prefer it. Personally though, I don't think it is necessary for B teams to drive all over the DMV and beyond to play (see CCL2). That's a personal preference, but I think it is reasonable.

Maybe your kids are super talented or have been fortunate to find quality coaching and teammates on lower tier teams, but I've watched my kids giving 100% playing full field games in 100 degree weather on hot turf trying to make a difference on a hapless team (with few or no subs), and it is tough.  As kids get older, one or two strong players make less of a difference, and having little hope of winning any game is not fun. Ditto being on a team where only a handful of kids come to practice or even having players not show up to games.  Seriously, what is the point?  That's both a parent and club problem. 
Have your kids been on a B or C team?  If so, you got luck, because my scenario is common.  I have seen it at multiple clubs. I forced one of my children kid to stick it out and try to be a leader on a very low level second team.  You know, life lessons and all, because I'm an amazing parent. :)  You know what that accomplished? She felt like a complete failure when she couldn't turn a group of non-committed girls with no technical skills at all into soccer players. She felt like she failed, when really, there was no chance for success in that environment. It is more of a parental or club failure than hers. She had a great attitude and gave it her all.  And you know what happened next?  She was rewarded with another round of tryouts, with no promotions from the B team to the A team but new players added to the A team from outside the club. And guess what?  No quality players were added to the B team either, because, no one aspires for a place on a team with only one or two wins per year.  That is why parents let their kids change clubs.

I also hear people say "go to a small club."  One of my kids is on a good team at a small club and many parents chose the club for that reason. The training is amazing.  However, as the team has gotten better and is winning, players from other clubs come over (mid-season) and some of the long time players have  been cut loose (mid season) or put on the bench, in favor of the new kids.  The club commitment is not even for a season. And these are kids who come to every practice. Are they the best? No. But they were put on the team and they are trying. What does that say to those kids when they are dropped or not rostered? What does it say to the kids on the team?  A small club isn't always the answer either.

I realize that the contract with the club is for a year. I am proposing that I would like to find a club that does not use that model.

I have listened (unfortunately) to my son playing video games. The only real threat of  harm is from me to him and to his future. :) I'm not saying stuff can't happen or saying that video games are good (believe me, I  hate them),  I'm offering some explanation of the appeal of video games for certain kids.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics