22:19 here - I think it helps that in this area, soccer and sports start VERY early for some - well before kindergarten. I'm athletic, and physical activity is a priority for me, so I've had my very energetic daughter enrolled in physical activities since she was very young. Swimming, tumbling, dance, gymnastics, "little olympians", t-ball, soccer, lacrosse, basketball, etc. She's always done something at least once a week. So kindergarten rec came pretty naturally to her - she enjoyed it, she was decent at it, and a lot of the other kids were in the same position. (plus we had a bunch of former soccer players - one pro - as our volunteer coaching staff.)

When you have a bunch of kids like that who happen to end up on the same team, it can lead to some lopsided wins over teams of kids who have never touched a ball.

Anonymous wrote:So if you have an athletic kid, partially his K friends are athletic. At the K level - just 2/3 kids knowing how to play makes the difference.

But take heart - its not in any way shape or form indicative of an elite soccer career. Its really just a good K team and potentially early bloomer ...

Also, I don't think the average rec K coach knows what good coaching is - winning at the K level is just unimportant. Really its skill development. Plus I am shocked there is even a score kept. I am guessing not.

In our area---the 'average rec K coach' was a former Division 1 player or such. We had some better coaches in Rec than we've had in travel in regards to development and how much they actually CARE about the children.

So if you have an athletic kid, partially his K friends are athletic. At the K level - just 2/3 kids knowing how to play makes the difference.

But take heart - its not in any way shape or form indicative of an elite soccer career. Its really just a good K team and potentially early bloomer ...

Also, I don't think the average rec K coach knows what good coaching is - winning at the K level is just unimportant. Really its skill development. Plus I am shocked there is even a score kept. I am guessing not.

DH coaches my kindergarten daughter's team and they are "playing up" to U7 this spring because they were dominating all the other teams in the fall. But even with moving up to a bigger field (before this season it was still on the smallest field without a goalie) they're 1-2, and they only lost by 1/3 goals when they lost, which is pretty good.

Part of it is that most of the girls on the team have been playing together since spring 2015; some girls have older siblings who play soccer and they get backyard playing time
with them; one girl is just extremely competitive and hates to lose, even at 5; while everyone on the team is in kindergarten, some turned 6 in the fall because our league let their developmental teams stay together despite the change in the birthday cutoff; and yes, DH is really good with the girls when he's coaching and has learned a lot from watching our older kids' coaches over the years.

Coaching. There's a big difference in parent who played said sport in college becoming a coach and a SAH parent who has the time and volunteers.

Pretty much the same record as PP. wondering if we're at same school? Ours is a school program so we take every kid in the grade who wants to play . A few huge factors:

Fun. The kids like each other and enjoy the coaches, and even with no scores really like "winning." This also leads to the next factor.

Kids come back. Third year with this Amtrak. Some (not all) girls left to a girls team. Some boys moved. But every boy in school still plays on same team, travel ambitions or not. Some kids simply don't get it, but most in their third year are developing real skills and their skill growth has been essential to our success.

Team atmosphere. As above, some get it, some don't, and a few really do. But the best and the worst (even though they're acutely aware who's who) are happy to support one another and like playing together- but they know what the others are capable of.

A ringer. One kid is just very skilled so he can be used anywhere in the field and in his equal share of play time always changes the game- we use him in goal when we're up by too much. But the team splits to multiple fields and he's not on every one and also plays limited time.

Other sports. While soccer practice at recess and after school would be best, our kids come from a more traditional sports schoool. But all kids play other sports- not just on teams, but at recess and aftercare and on free weekends. These kids are becoming athletes and that helps in soccer.

Biggest one: touches and patience. Our kids have their own ball at their feet for at least 30 minutes at each weekly practice. 30 minutes isn't much, but it's the time we have with 8 old attention spans before small sided scrimmages. But think about how much time they have the ball at their feet in a game or scrimmage and you'll realize that these 30 minutes make all the difference. Patience because k some kids learn slowly.

Our kindergarten team was really good- randomly assigned. I think it was a combo of athletic kids plus parents who knew the game plus good coaching. When our girls split off from the boys in 1st, same thing happened- we were undefeated one season, lost one game in the second season and tied one game in the third. At least half of the wins have been very lopsided.

Coaching. My daughter's coach is a Dad who played at Wisconsin and they dominate (and this is a pretty random group of kids who don't appear to have any innate athleticism). He knows age-appropriate drills, how to encourage the kids, and how to teach them basic skills like passing, spreading out, dribbling...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty simple. In some clubs, you can pick your own players and team build your rec team. Other clubs don't allow this and you can't request teammates.

Ok, but even if you're allowed to do this, how do you 'build' a team at kindergarten level in the 1st season? Unless the coach knows a lot of players personally well before K, there doesn't appear to be a way pick the right players?

I don't like this. Rec is meant to be a hodge-podge. My husband coaches and other than our son---we didn't ask for any special requests. The rec director pulled the teams. Kids that otherwise wouldn't have interacted much are now good friends.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty simple. In some clubs, you can pick your own players and team build your rec team. Other clubs don't allow this and you can't request teammates.

Ok, but even if you're allowed to do this, how do you 'build' a team at kindergarten level in the 1st season? Unless the coach knows a lot of players personally well before K, there doesn't appear to be a way pick the right players?

It's athletic kids and coaching. Coaching can really make a BIG difference. My son's coach took a rag-tag bunch of kids and had them undefeated for 3 grades running. Coach played everyone equal time--no matter their ability and encouraged all of them. He did better drills than kids now get in travel. The kids also passed and played to space better. They all left with great ball skill. He taught the basics like learning to use both feet, head-up, not bunching, etc. Parents and players have lamented that their travel team plays 'bunch ball'. They just kick and run. This actually hurt a lot of our players in tryout selections. They weren't just mowing kids over. They were soccer-smart which isn't valued at a lot of the cattle-call U9 tryouts. He often had parents (Spanish speaking ones of opposing teams) how they could get their son on his team. This team has beat teams with all travel kids in tournaments. By 3rd grade--even the least talented player has improved light years.

All the disgruntled travel parents are frustrated with the fact we can't just make our own travel team with coach and rec kids. The monopoly of fields and big clubs, etc.

Pretty simple. In some clubs, you can pick your own players and team build your rec team. Other clubs don't allow this and you can't request teammates.

My daughter has played soccer for two years in MSI. Coaching makes a huge, huge difference. It takes a special person to not only wrangle 13 5, 6, 7 year olds - and an even more special one to teach them skills at a young age.

When my daughter played rec soccer, her coach was a volunteer/parent but had playing and coaching experience and knew what age appropriate drills to do. As a result, by the time they had a couple of seasons under their belts they were well ahead of the other teams in terms of footskills and ball control. By U8, I'd say they were dominant. Most went on to play travel. They weren't particularly big although some of the kids were athletic and had good coordination. So I think good coaching can make a difference even at very young ages.

i know the subject sounds ridiculous because we're talking about 5-yos playing kiddie soccer, but i'm just trying to understand what the possible factors are that make a team so much better than the rest in KINDERGARTEN! at the end of practice the other day i overheared a player asked the coach if they're going to play team xyz again, and the coach said yes very likley, then the little girl said oh team xyz is so so so good. i don't know how their last match went (new on the team) but the team xyz probably really dominiated to leave such impression on this 5-yo girl. interestingly enough, i also happened to have witnessed how club xyz's 2nd grader team dominated my other child's rec soccer team for the last two years.

so my question is, given that these two rec clubs draw players from two neighboring public schools of very similar student bodies (race, wealth etc.), how come one club is already stronger from the get-go? in other words, how does one club end up with more athletic kids on a team than the others, year after year? of course my experience is very limited but i'm not sure it's just an outlier. most every team gets one to two very fast/strong kids and are mostly evenly matched against each other, except one that gets three or four (that's half of the roster!)? what gives?

again i understand kiddie soccer win/loss mean next to nothing, i am genuinely curious about the gap in 'talent.'