Reply to Travel soccer plus little league

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Travel soccer plus little league"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It sucks.  But, I really don't think any kid should be trying to do two travel sports in the same season.

1) it automatically teaches kids the wrong thing--- not making a commitment to the team.

Any kid that is going to sign up for travel has a commitment to the Coach and teammates.  It's really infuriating to have players miss tournaments or games for another sport.

My kids were athletic and did very well in multiple sports at a young age---soccer, flag football, lacrosse, baseball, basketball.

But, I only let them play one travel sport per season.  With soccer, it's pretty much year-round.

I also tried to minimize signing up for any sport that would have conflicts.  So--it was winter Rec basketball and travel soccer.  One year--flag football (games Saturdays) and travel soccer(games Sundays).

I found baseball to hard to juggle since the increase and games, length of practices, game times.  It would have required a full-time commitment that wasn't possible with travel soccer.  I do know kids that do it.  When they get to a higher team in soccer--the coach usually makes them make a choice.  I am sure the travel baseball coach does the same.

It's just not fair to teammates to have teammates that repeatedly miss games/practices.[/quote]

Again, NO!

Youth travel sports at 8 years old are not about "Commitment to the Team". They are about exposing CHILDREN to a sport and teaching them the necessary skills to succeed in that sport. If the kid, without practice, is still good enough to start over your child you need to worry more about your kid and less about someone else's kid. If the other kid does decide to take baseball more seriously my guess is your kid still isn't starting.

Do you ask your kid everyday after school what kids were not in class that day? As long as there are enough kids to have practice and field a team for a game the attendance of the other kid is not something that affects your kid at all. [/quote]

You are so wrong.

If your kid cannot make it to practice, even for his rec team, he only should be playing the minimum[/quote]

I dont think you understand how rec teams work.  It's about learning.

[/quote]

I don't think you understand being part of a team.[/quote]

You're not making sense.

Take MSI rec soccer, age 7.  [b]One kid is a star.  Natural talent, etc.  [u]Shows up to practice.[/u]  Other kid AWFUL.  Shows up to practice because forced by parents.[/b]  During a game, star kid is a star, while other kid literally picks flowers and even scores once for the other team.

Both are getting equal playing time, but the star is frustrated because the other kid is awful.  Star plays other sports where teammates are better, so he prefers to play there.  Rec team suffers.

Is it about learning, or sports mentality, or fairness?  You can't have it all.[/quote]

At age 7? 1st or 2nd graders on a rec team? Everyone should get at least the minimum playing time, even the daisy picker.

But the key thing you are arguing about is bolded and underlined.  If the star attends practice, he should play/start.  That is not the dispute here. The dispute is whether the star who does not attend practice should be able to waltz in and start/get more playing time over the kids who are attending practice regularly.  He should not, especially in baseball. He wasn't there to practice drills. He wasn't there to practice fielding with the team. There are a dozen kids on a little league roster, with 3 kids benched each inning. All of those 3 are not going to be daisy pickers. One might be a daisy picker, one might be a kid who gives it his all but at 7 or 8 is not a developed player, and one might be a solid player. If all of those three have attended all the practices, why should they be on the bench while the kid who has never attended practice get to start? He shouldn't. No matter how good he is. The average kid who has tried week in and out should be a starter while the kid who only pops in for games should be on the bench cheering snd supporting his teammates.[/quote]

If the star is better than the kid on the bench, I'm sorry, but that's life. You have no idea what training the star is putting in away from your practices. Again, my advice is to worry about your kids development and path and not about who is starting. Your kid has two to three practices a week to get better than the absent kid and can't do it. Your problem is you have a different problem than the one you are fixated on. [/quote]

A star at 7 in baseball does not make a star at 10, 13 or high school.

That daisy picker has just as likely odds of being a solid or even superior baseball player by 10, 13 or high school as the kid with early aptitude.[/quote]

Another reason to not worry about Timmy skipping practices at 8 years old. [/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