My kid are the weak ones.

Equal time...but you have to sub smart.

The lowest kid must have at least two stars on the field with him. Let the low kid do things like throw ins so that he feels a part of things and has successful moments.

My kids were starters most games, not because they were part of the A line. But because they were always put on the field with the stars of the team.

Put them in the positions where they do the least damage. If the other team is very offensive, put the weak kids on office (not more than one weak kids at a time thought). If the other team is weaker on offense, keep your weak players on defense with a really strong teammate back with them.

Give the weak kids a chance at goalie...they might surprise you. Mine got put in the last game of the season, and had a shut out against a strong offensive team.

He couldn't catch or punt, was very slow and uncoordinated and was the kind of kid who got distracted by bugs and clover. However, being put i. A small concentrated boclx with one single duty allowed him to be the star of one game. He was so focused on not letting the ball by that he was able to concentrate on the game. He couldn"t catch or block the ball but he would ru. Right up and smother it, sometimes right at another kids feet.

Be smart about how you share time and how you assign positoons, and the weak kids will have far less impact on the game even with equal playing time.

Another coach here. Softball.

I do it evenly, even if the game is on the line. By that I mean I alternate infield and outfield (even though things rarely happen in the outfield), and bench assignments (when I have more than 10 players) are done in rotation.

There are two exceptions to my rule:

1) Girls who goof off during practice or are disrespectful to coaches are more likely to find themselves sitting on the bench more in games. And they know this. We covered this at the front of the season. It's only happened once.

2) We're at the age where pitchers have to commit to extra practice. Only the girls who will attend clinics get the opportunity to pitch.

Other than that, even-steven.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fine to play the better kids more, as long as the other kids are playing some. My kid is 9 and is fine at soccer, but not great. Frankly, he wants the better kids to play more b/c they like to win. That's reality. IMO, if your kid is not a great player by 9-10, playing a few more minutes during the game is not going to make a difference. Generally, the really good players are on travel anyway, so they can't show up for every game. So the non-stars are going to get plenty of play time. And if you really want your non-star kid to get better at soccer, put him/her in clinics, etc. That's the way to improve...

As a former rec coach, I think this is even more reason to play everybody the same. If I can't depend on your kid to show up for every game, don't expect me to play him more than anybody else. Making a commitment to a TEAM and meeting those obligations should be one of the key lessons of rec sports.

Former coach of baseball and basketball here- equal playing time in rec leagues. The goal of a rec league should be to teach the sport and not wins. Trust me, nobody is going to care how many games you won in 4th grade. In my experience, the biggest reason for "star players" is age differential. Often, the best players are 6-9 months older than their peers which is huge when younger. The gap will close as they get to MS and HS.

In short, you have the same obligation to the kid on the end of the bench as you do to the "stars".

I think it's fine to play the better kids more, as long as the other kids are playing some. My kid is 9 and is fine at soccer, but not great. Frankly, he wants the better kids to play more b/c they like to win. That's reality. IMO, if your kid is not a great player by 9-10, playing a few more minutes during the game is not going to make a difference. Generally, the really good players are on travel anyway, so they can't show up for every game. So the non-stars are going to get plenty of play time. And if you really want your non-star kid to get better at soccer, put him/her in clinics, etc. That's the way to improve...

Anonymous wrote:I coach a lot of rec across several sports. I play the kids equally, or as equally as I can. Yes, it is annoying when other coaches play their "stars" more. Even more annoying when the winning and losing is taught as the lesson at that level (age not important). My biggest pet peeve? When a rec team is loaded with travel players who kick the snot out of a rec team and then treat it like they won the world cup or world series. I am not even sure why they think it is worth the time or that much fun for either team.

I hear you. I have a couple of parents on my son's BB travel team who regularly have their kids play in rec teams. They always brag about how their kids score 30 - 40 points, while scoring maybe 8-10 points on travel. They do it to built their kids self esteem, I see it as being the big fish in small pond syndrome. Anyway, these parents are very status conscious as well, so it is more about them.

Perhaps something in between? I mean, equal as the goal, but don't put equal above fun.

Equal playing time across all games, but don't pull someone who is on a roll just because the minutes ran out?

Put the hot shot in goal (unless there is someone else who wants that) and don't count those minutes toward his time. The team will do better and the weaker kids will get more fun minutes.

Also, do the hot shots pass? If they don't, they are not helpi g the other kids learn so don't feel bad about pulling them.

I coach a lot of rec across several sports. I play the kids equally, or as equally as I can. Yes, it is annoying when other coaches play their "stars" more. Even more annoying when the winning and losing is taught as the lesson at that level (age not important). My biggest pet peeve? When a rec team is loaded with travel players who kick the snot out of a rec team and then treat it like they won the world cup or world series. I am not even sure why they think it is worth the time or that much fun for either team.

Yep, you're doing good.

My kid is below avg, but he really tries. On our 4th grade BB team, the superstars play 4 quarters, my kid ends up playing 2 quarters.

We're in 1st place, but it does annoy me.
Particularly, because I know that my kid will get better with more playing time.

I'm the parent of a couple of good players. One is kind of a star. In rec, you should try to give all the kids equal playing time as much as possible. If anything, dole minutes out based on effort and enthusiasm rather than how good the kids are. Some kids really aren't that into it and just stand around. Ok. But some love the sport and might not be as good; those kids should get just as much playing time, I think, as any perceived stars.
(And as a pp noted, we've moved our kids to more competitive teams.)
It sounds like you're a good coach, OP.

In our rec soccer league I think the rule was that each kid had to play at least 50% of the game, not that each kid got equal minutes. So the "stars" usually did play more than 50% and the rest of the kids played at least 50%. Usually it wasn't much of an issue since the team size, and occasional absences and illnesses, meant that all kids would get more than 50% of the playing time - the bench wasn't that deep.

In rec, equal playing time all the way through. Kids/parents who want a more competitive atmosphere can move to competitive club or travel teams.

In our House soccer club, all players are supposed to receive equal playing time regardless of age.

Play them all the same as long as they are competing out there. If parents don't like it, they'll move on.

So I coach a bunch of 8-9 year olds in rec soccer and have a few superstars on the team. Since they are young and it's rec, I give equal playing time to all as long as the kids are trying out there. This has cost us some games against teams that play their key players the entire game, but I am okay with that because I don't believe the final score is what youth rec sports is all about. Having said that, is there an age even in rec where you think the better players should receive more playing time? I would hate to penalize kids if they are really giving their best effort, but I suspect there would also be some parental pressure to play to win as the kids get older. In this ultra-competitive area, I'd like to hear what other coaches are doing. Thanks.