Anonymous wrote:Our Rec League requires each kid play 50% of the game. If you can play the strong players more, while still giving everyone else 50%, go for it.
It's Rec, how are other players going to develop if they aren't given the playing time?
And, it's Rec, it's supposed to be fun for everyone - don't be that jerk coach who only cares about winning and not player development, teamwork, fun, etc
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you feel that it's OK to focus 90% of the course material to the smartest kids in the class, and only spend 70% as much time on the middle kids and 40% on the dumbest kids?
How about paying attention to the best looking kids 90% of the time and only focusing on the average kids 70% of the time and barely looking at the ugliest 40% of the time?
Let's extrapolate this and many things like it across their entire lives and see what kind of society we get...
OP. No, I don't think its OK in a classroom to focus exclusively on the smarter kids. The weekly soccer game, however, isn't the only classroom, in this case. The main classroom is the weekly practices where we focus heavily on the newcomers to the game. Those kids that show up for our practices definitely show steady improvement. We have 3 coaches (1 head, 2 assistants) that work together with the kids, so they are getting a heck of a lot of attention. All of us have extensive soccer experience. All of us have coached many years. The better kids on our team have been with us for years, and I'd like to believe that the coaches on this team are responsible, at least in part, for their development into strong players.
In our weekly games, the kids don't like to lose. They want to win. If they truly didn't care about winning, I'd play the kids with equal minutes. But herein lies the tension: they want to win, and they also each want as many minutes as possible. This isn't possible. I cannot simultaneously (1) win games and (2) play all kids equal minutes. This isn't possible. I feel uneasy regardless of which approach I use. Losing badly doesn't feel right, nor does favoring the stronger players. But there isn't any middle ground. I can only do one or the other.
Anonymous wrote:Do you feel that it's OK to focus 90% of the course material to the smartest kids in the class, and only spend 70% as much time on the middle kids and 40% on the dumbest kids?
How about paying attention to the best looking kids 90% of the time and only focusing on the average kids 70% of the time and barely looking at the ugliest 40% of the time?
Let's extrapolate this and many things like it across their entire lives and see what kind of society we get...
Anonymous wrote:Play all your players the same amount.
But, play your stronger players in the middle of the field and at keeper. So, if you are playing 9v9, play a 3-3-2 with your best two players as center D and center mid. Then next two as keeper and a forward. Keep two of your best 4 always at center D and center mid. Rotating in - at other positions depending on your numbers.
Anonymous wrote:I'm coaching a rec soccer composed mostly of 5th graders.
We have had a lot of turnover the last couple of years, with some kids moving onwards to play in the travel league, and kids who are entirely new to the game joining the team. About half the team has less than 1 year of experience.
If I play all of the kids evenly -- each getting the same number of minutes -- will would probably lose every game by a wide margin.
If I slightly favor the 5 most experienced kids -- letting them play 90% of each game -- and slightly underplay the rest of the kids, letting them play about 70% of each game -- then the team is competitive and we can we games.
So far this season, I've been favoring the more experienced players to avoid lopsided defeats. I've received no complaints from parents or the kids.
If you are a rec league coach, do you feel my strategy is appropriate, or should I be giving all kids equal playing time?
Keep in mind that no player is permanently parked on the sidelines. Everybody is playing at least 60% of each game.