Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying kids shouldn't have opportunities to play different positions, I'm only saying that if you're going to raise it with the coach, make sure it's because it's what the kid wants rather than what the parents want. OP told us what the parents hoped for, but not the kids.

Also, it's good not to make assumptions about why something is being done without having it explained to you first. Don't assume the coach is deliberately shutting out other players in favor of these three if it's going to come out in the conversation that coach asked kids at practice what they wanted to play and your kid asked to play defense, because then you lose a lot of credibility even if you're otherwise right that that coach should be switching things up more.

I'm saying a kid in U9 or U10 doesn't really know what he wants or what he should want. Parents have a right to insist that, for the kids' development, they are given opportunities to play at all positions. It is better for the kids' development, period, regardless of whether a kid wants to play one position all the time. Think about it this way -- say a 9yo is a "natural striker" and wants to play only striker. Should that kid not be required to play other positions? It's not more acceptable just because a kid wants to play a less sought-after position like defender. All kids at that age should be rotating through all positions, period.

I guess that depends on what your priorities are. Are our kids playing for enjoyment of the game, or are they playing to maximize their talent and performance even if it comes at the expense of their enjoyment of the game? A U9 or U10 kid often knows exactly what they want, it just doesn't always square with what the kid's parent wants them to want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying kids shouldn't have opportunities to play different positions, I'm only saying that if you're going to raise it with the coach, make sure it's because it's what the kid wants rather than what the parents want. OP told us what the parents hoped for, but not the kids.

Also, it's good not to make assumptions about why something is being done without having it explained to you first. Don't assume the coach is deliberately shutting out other players in favor of these three if it's going to come out in the conversation that coach asked kids at practice what they wanted to play and your kid asked to play defense, because then you lose a lot of credibility even if you're otherwise right that that coach should be switching things up more.

I'm saying a kid in U9 or U10 doesn't really know what he wants or what he should want. Parents have a right to insist that, for the kids' development, they are given opportunities to play at all positions. It is better for the kids' development, period, regardless of whether a kid wants to play one position all the time. Think about it this way -- say a 9yo is a "natural striker" and wants to play only striker. Should that kid not be required to play other positions? It's not more acceptable just because a kid wants to play a less sought-after position like defender. All kids at that age should be rotating through all positions, period.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying kids shouldn't have opportunities to play different positions, I'm only saying that if you're going to raise it with the coach, make sure it's because it's what the kid wants rather than what the parents want. OP told us what the parents hoped for, but not the kids.

Also, it's good not to make assumptions about why something is being done without having it explained to you first. Don't assume the coach is deliberately shutting out other players in favor of these three if it's going to come out in the conversation that coach asked kids at practice what they wanted to play and your kid asked to play defense, because then you lose a lot of credibility even if you're otherwise right that that coach should be switching things up more.

I'm saying a kid in U9 or U10 doesn't really know what he wants or what he should want. Parents have a right to insist that, for the kids' development, they are given opportunities to play at all positions. It is better for the kids' development, period, regardless of whether a kid wants to play one position all the time. Think about it this way -- say a 9yo is a "natural striker" and wants to play only striker. Should that kid not be required to play other positions? It's not more acceptable just because a kid wants to play a less sought-after position like defender. All kids at that age should be rotating through all positions, period.

I'm not saying kids shouldn't have opportunities to play different positions, I'm only saying that if you're going to raise it with the coach, make sure it's because it's what the kid wants rather than what the parents want. OP told us what the parents hoped for, but not the kids.

Also, it's good not to make assumptions about why something is being done without having it explained to you first. Don't assume the coach is deliberately shutting out other players in favor of these three if it's going to come out in the conversation that coach asked kids at practice what they wanted to play and your kid asked to play defense, because then you lose a lot of credibility even if you're otherwise right that that coach should be switching things up more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has your kid expressed a desire (independent of your own comments/questions) to play offense, or is it possible he's happy playing defense? My kid is a natural defender and really enjoys that role, he would play offense if the coach asked him to but it wasn't where he wanted to be. A lot of people (including parents) tend to dismiss defense (which is it's own skill set, not just a lesser form of offensive play) in favor of offense because offense is more attention-grabbing when you're scoring the goals instead of preventing the shots from being taken in the first place, but if your son's talents lie with defense, letting him develop it there rather than pushing him to the other side of the field may be in his best interest, especially down the road with more selective teams when positions are more settled and there's an imbalance of kids wanting to play offense vs. defense.

Even if the player likes to play D or wants to play D in future, he still needs to play other positions to be a better player.

And at the age of 9 or 10, a kid really doesn't know what he wants to do or what he would be best at. My kid was a "natural defender" at U10; he gravitated toward that because he was good at it and wasn't an attention-seeker or very aggressive. Three years later he's primarily a forward, though he understands his role as a defender as well. And playing 11 v. 11 on a full field is really different than 8 v. 8 on a half field, and players who didn't shine on small sides may shine on full field because they have more speed, pass accurately, and see the field well.

My U10 dd had her first game with new team this weekend. I asked her what the coach had told them before the game and after the game. She said that most of what he talked about in both huddles was about looking for the pass and not taking over other kids' positions.

It didn't seem to work. One girl literally stole the ball from another player on her team and went in to shoot. But it seems to be a clear emphasis for this coach, at least.

My kid plays baseball but we dealt with a similar situation. The coach had a son who was athletically gifted. There were about two other players who were a step below the coach’s superstar. Those three kids were the only ones who were put at pitcher and first base under the guise of not wanting other kids to get hurt in those positions. Nobody else had an opportunity to play those positions and my son was put in the outfield for pretty much every game, with the exception of maybe a few innings. He didn’t develop at all and baseball can be pretty boring when you’re always in the outfield.

Coach moved up an age group with his kid and one of the other parents took over as coach. My son has been playing all different positions this season and it turns out he’s pretty good at pitcher and 1st base. He just needed the opportunity to get to play those decisions. It can’t be expected that kids will have skills to play different positions when they’ve never been afforded the opportunity. If this coach does the same thing as the old coach then definitely switch teams.

Anonymous wrote:Has your kid expressed a desire (independent of your own comments/questions) to play offense, or is it possible he's happy playing defense? My kid is a natural defender and really enjoys that role, he would play offense if the coach asked him to but it wasn't where he wanted to be. A lot of people (including parents) tend to dismiss defense (which is it's own skill set, not just a lesser form of offensive play) in favor of offense because offense is more attention-grabbing when you're scoring the goals instead of preventing the shots from being taken in the first place, but if your son's talents lie with defense, letting him develop it there rather than pushing him to the other side of the field may be in his best interest, especially down the road with more selective teams when positions are more settled and there's an imbalance of kids wanting to play offense vs. defense.

Even if the player likes to play D or wants to play D in future, he still needs to play other positions to be a better player.

Has your kid expressed a desire (independent of your own comments/questions) to play offense, or is it possible he's happy playing defense? My kid is a natural defender and really enjoys that role, he would play offense if the coach asked him to but it wasn't where he wanted to be. A lot of people (including parents) tend to dismiss defense (which is it's own skill set, not just a lesser form of offensive play) in favor of offense because offense is more attention-grabbing when you're scoring the goals instead of preventing the shots from being taken in the first place, but if your son's talents lie with defense, letting him develop it there rather than pushing him to the other side of the field may be in his best interest, especially down the road with more selective teams when positions are more settled and there's an imbalance of kids wanting to play offense vs. defense.

talk to coach and if movement doesnt occur appropriately, time to leave if soccer development is the goal.

Up until U13 or so, coaches should be rotating positions for everyone (though goalies and those who are defenders by choice may be slotted earlier). If this coach is not, you should absolutely get off of this team. My kids' U14 team still moves players around a fair amount. My kid plays both right and left wing and right back, and the occasional midfield or striker tour of duty.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, at this age, player should play different positions.

Agree, and any coach who is up to date on best practices for development should know this and implement it. We are on a team at Bethesda where the coach is scrupulous about rotating positions and ensuring equal playing time, at least for league games. It makes us less competitive than if he played players in their best natural position, but is undoubtedly good for them to get a broader sense of what the game is about.

Is the coach a professional or a parent? I personally would probably look for a new team for next season or year so your son can get better coaching and the experience of playing with different players on a more even playing field.

Ask the coach whether the kids will get the opportunity to try different positions and if s/he doesn't get the hint, switch teams next year.

Yes, at this age, player should play different positions.

We’ve lived in the same neighborhood for years. A group of boys including my son have played rec league together for two years.

The kids are U9. They have now joined a more advanced league together. Three of the players are children of the former rec coaches. An unfortunate pattern developed where they were favored during play and encouraged to hog the ball. They would also only pass to one another. My DS and several other strong players were shut out of playing any offense and relegated to defense.

As a result of those years of play, my DS now thinks of himself as an exclusively defensive player. This is also true of at least four other players that have advanced with him. All of them are strong players, but they have learned not to challenge the three “stars.”

Is it reasonable to expect their new coach to break the old patterns of play? So far, I’m not seeing any change and the new coach is allowing the three players to dominate offense, as before. To be fair, they are more comfortable in offense, because that’s the role they’re used to playing.

I and the other parents were hoping that our kids would be given more opportunities to play different positions. Should we speak up?