Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's U13 team has a roster of 18 and one player gets probably less than 5 minutes on the field when its a tight game. This player was here last year as well. I dont understand why the parents tolerate it or why the coaches keep her if they won't put her on the field. Its a waste of time and money not to mention soul crushing to go through that.

Not just directed at you, but everyone - I get that it may be frustrating to not get adequate playing time, but I agree with the view that most of the development comes from trainings, not the games. So when balancing whether to leave for a team in which your kid will play more, also think about the level of competition they will face 3-5 hours per week at practice rather than the competition they face ~1 hour per week at a game.

What exactly are they developing for if not to use their skills in a game?

You think being on the field for 30 minutes and touching the ball 8 times for a total of 46 seconds during a game beats 6 hours of training and hundreds of touches?

You think playing a sport that is supposed to be fun and wasting your weekend sitting on the bench is going to keep you excited to want to keep playing. Of course at the highest levels where it is more cut throat some of this is to expected. The truth is these teams should carry less players so the ones there are getting what they signed up for. But that doesn't bring in enough $$$.

Anonymous wrote:IME, the "favorites" are usually the cutest or most conventionally attractive kids.

What a strange comment.

The favorites on DS team are the ones that consistently play well and/or make an impact. The ones that are confident in their plays and don’t dwell on mistakes and just keeps hustling.

Anonymous wrote:For anyone who successfully discussed playing time with coach, what approach worked best?

Appealing to the coach’s ability to bring out the best in your kid. We reminded the coach that our child was specially and specifically chosen for his team by him and he must’ve seen something in him to do this. We ended up coming up with an agreement which will probably make everyone freak out, but we had to pay for extra training and it resulted in our son having a starting spot and playing much more. Realistically, most parents don’t wanna do this. Extra training resulted in a much better performance from our son until his value to the team was undeniable. He started, he rocked it, he was awesome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's U13 team has a roster of 18 and one player gets probably less than 5 minutes on the field when its a tight game. This player was here last year as well. I dont understand why the parents tolerate it or why the coaches keep her if they won't put her on the field. Its a waste of time and money not to mention soul crushing to go through that.

Not just directed at you, but everyone - I get that it may be frustrating to not get adequate playing time, but I agree with the view that most of the development comes from trainings, not the games. So when balancing whether to leave for a team in which your kid will play more, also think about the level of competition they will face 3-5 hours per week at practice rather than the competition they face ~1 hour per week at a game.

What exactly are they developing for if not to use their skills in a game?

You think being on the field for 30 minutes and touching the ball 8 times for a total of 46 seconds during a game beats 6 hours of training and hundreds of touches?

IME, the "favorites" are usually the cutest or most conventionally attractive kids.

Anonymous wrote:You must def be new to travel soccer. Coaches play to win, so suck it up buttercup looks like your DD is not good enough.

Really depends. Some coaches play favorites. And sometimes these favorites are not always the best in the team. Why are they favorites? That is the million dollar question.

Even at U14, unless this team is ECNL, GA, or premier 1, who cares if they win or lose? No kid should sit on the bench that much. We had the same issue for a while and it took my DD years to catch back up, through a lot of extra work. But also make sure there isn’t another reason they aren’t playing. We know a few cases where kids tell their parents they are doing everything they can to get better and work hard, but in practice they were really more interested in socializing and goofing off. Kids aren’t always fully transparent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's U13 team has a roster of 18 and one player gets probably less than 5 minutes on the field when its a tight game. This player was here last year as well. I dont understand why the parents tolerate it or why the coaches keep her if they won't put her on the field. Its a waste of time and money not to mention soul crushing to go through that.

Not just directed at you, but everyone - I get that it may be frustrating to not get adequate playing time, but I agree with the view that most of the development comes from trainings, not the games. So when balancing whether to leave for a team in which your kid will play more, also think about the level of competition they will face 3-5 hours per week at practice rather than the competition they face ~1 hour per week at a game.

What exactly are they developing for if not to use their skills in a game?

Just about like every high school or college sport, the best play and others get some, little or no playing time. Welcome to competitive sports, if you don't like it play rec.

Ugh no. Op is just starting travel at U14 that's late so that means this is not a super high level. If you hold tryouts and say you make a team you should play in games. If you aren't good enough to play in games they shouldn't say you are and take your $$$.

If you feel entitled to playing time in travel soccer by virtue of how much money you spent, then go back to rec. doesn’t matter if it’s not high level, there is no expectation of playing time in travel, period. People, just go back to rec. u and ur kid will be happier.

Its not necessary to go back to rec. There are travel teams that will give every player decent playing time, but people need to be of the mindset that they won't tolerate and waste their time on a team that doesn't value them, and make the move. Im

You must def be new to travel soccer. Coaches play to win, so suck it up buttercup looks like your DD is not good enough.

On our team tournaments are played to win. Some kids sit the bench the whole game. In regular season they usually play everyone at least 20 minutes. But in tournaments they don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's U13 team has a roster of 18 and one player gets probably less than 5 minutes on the field when its a tight game. This player was here last year as well. I dont understand why the parents tolerate it or why the coaches keep her if they won't put her on the field. Its a waste of time and money not to mention soul crushing to go through that.

Not just directed at you, but everyone - I get that it may be frustrating to not get adequate playing time, but I agree with the view that most of the development comes from trainings, not the games. So when balancing whether to leave for a team in which your kid will play more, also think about the level of competition they will face 3-5 hours per week at practice rather than the competition they face ~1 hour per week at a game.

What exactly are they developing for if not to use their skills in a game?

Just about like every high school or college sport, the best play and others get some, little or no playing time. Welcome to competitive sports, if you don't like it play rec.

Ugh no. Op is just starting travel at U14 that's late so that means this is not a super high level. If you hold tryouts and say you make a team you should play in games. If you aren't good enough to play in games they shouldn't say you are and take your $$$.

I agree with this. Why put a kid on a team if not to develop and play them? So often at mid tier travel teams it’s parental involvement, addl sessions (that put more $ in the coach’s pocket) or just plain ole playing favorites. The reality is the majority of travel kids aren’t going to play in college many are looking for a step up from Rec and these coaches need to acknowledge that and equalize playing time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's U13 team has a roster of 18 and one player gets probably less than 5 minutes on the field when its a tight game. This player was here last year as well. I dont understand why the parents tolerate it or why the coaches keep her if they won't put her on the field. Its a waste of time and money not to mention soul crushing to go through that.

Not just directed at you, but everyone - I get that it may be frustrating to not get adequate playing time, but I agree with the view that most of the development comes from trainings, not the games. So when balancing whether to leave for a team in which your kid will play more, also think about the level of competition they will face 3-5 hours per week at practice rather than the competition they face ~1 hour per week at a game.

What exactly are they developing for if not to use their skills in a game?

Just about like every high school or college sport, the best play and others get some, little or no playing time. Welcome to competitive sports, if you don't like it play rec.

Ugh no. Op is just starting travel at U14 that's late so that means this is not a super high level. If you hold tryouts and say you make a team you should play in games. If you aren't good enough to play in games they shouldn't say you are and take your $$$.

If you feel entitled to playing time in travel soccer by virtue of how much money you spent, then go back to rec. doesn’t matter if it’s not high level, there is no expectation of playing time in travel, period. People, just go back to rec. u and ur kid will be happier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's U13 team has a roster of 18 and one player gets probably less than 5 minutes on the field when its a tight game. This player was here last year as well. I dont understand why the parents tolerate it or why the coaches keep her if they won't put her on the field. Its a waste of time and money not to mention soul crushing to go through that.

Not just directed at you, but everyone - I get that it may be frustrating to not get adequate playing time, but I agree with the view that most of the development comes from trainings, not the games. So when balancing whether to leave for a team in which your kid will play more, also think about the level of competition they will face 3-5 hours per week at practice rather than the competition they face ~1 hour per week at a game.

What exactly are they developing for if not to use their skills in a game?

Just about like every high school or college sport, the best play and others get some, little or no playing time. Welcome to competitive sports, if you don't like it play rec.

Ugh no. Op is just starting travel at U14 that's late so that means this is not a super high level. If you hold tryouts and say you make a team you should play in games. If you aren't good enough to play in games they shouldn't say you are and take your $$$.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's U13 team has a roster of 18 and one player gets probably less than 5 minutes on the field when its a tight game. This player was here last year as well. I dont understand why the parents tolerate it or why the coaches keep her if they won't put her on the field. Its a waste of time and money not to mention soul crushing to go through that.

Not just directed at you, but everyone - I get that it may be frustrating to not get adequate playing time, but I agree with the view that most of the development comes from trainings, not the games. So when balancing whether to leave for a team in which your kid will play more, also think about the level of competition they will face 3-5 hours per week at practice rather than the competition they face ~1 hour per week at a game.

What exactly are they developing for if not to use their skills in a game?

Just about like every high school or college sport, the best play and others get some, little or no playing time. Welcome to competitive sports, if you don't like it play rec.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's U13 team has a roster of 18 and one player gets probably less than 5 minutes on the field when its a tight game. This player was here last year as well. I dont understand why the parents tolerate it or why the coaches keep her if they won't put her on the field. Its a waste of time and money not to mention soul crushing to go through that.

Not just directed at you, but everyone - I get that it may be frustrating to not get adequate playing time, but I agree with the view that most of the development comes from trainings, not the games. So when balancing whether to leave for a team in which your kid will play more, also think about the level of competition they will face 3-5 hours per week at practice rather than the competition they face ~1 hour per week at a game.

What exactly are they developing for if not to use their skills in a game?