Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, if a kid is making the same mistakes under pressure, making poor decisions in a game they should not be in the game because those things cannot be corrected in game. They can be addressed in practice and over time those things improve.

Again, not every kid is ready for game pressure and that can be very destructive to confidence and reinforces bad habits. If the problems are first touch, well getting 2 maybe 3 touches every five minutes in a game is not nearly as developmentally productive as a high tempo practice with rondos or other touch heavy drills. A player who needs to develop first touch will get more touches in five minutes of practice then they would in a full soccer game.

Games offer more information to the coach about what needs to be worked on during practice.

But until you seriously question what your player needs to improve you are hardly in the best position to judge how they are actually being coached.

___________________________/


All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

The bolded demonstrates your ignorance regarding youth soccer. No, the speed of the game and the decisions required in game do not allow in game corrections. You couldn't be more wrong and there are stacks of literature that disagrees with you as well. You coach during the week and observe in the game. Coaches adjust minutes and positions in the game and may change formations but a coach does not give direction during the game.

Take your kid to rec and shout at them from your chair because that is who you are and what you want.

Coaches do not give direction during a game? One of the most discussed as successful team on this board has multiple coaches giving directions to players during a game. all game.

Anonymous wrote:Are you parents listening to yourselves? Every club would love a maximum sized/full roster (it's called capitalism, full roster = more money for the club and the coach).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, if a kid is making the same mistakes under pressure, making poor decisions in a game they should not be in the game because those things cannot be corrected in game. They can be addressed in practice and over time those things improve.

Again, not every kid is ready for game pressure and that can be very destructive to confidence and reinforces bad habits. If the problems are first touch, well getting 2 maybe 3 touches every five minutes in a game is not nearly as developmentally productive as a high tempo practice with rondos or other touch heavy drills. A player who needs to develop first touch will get more touches in five minutes of practice then they would in a full soccer game.

Games offer more information to the coach about what needs to be worked on during practice.

But until you seriously question what your player needs to improve you are hardly in the best position to judge how they are actually being coached.

___________________________/


All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

The bolded demonstrates your ignorance regarding youth soccer. No, the speed of the game and the decisions required in game do not allow in game corrections. You couldn't be more wrong and there are stacks of literature that disagrees with you as well. You coach during the week and observe in the game. Coaches adjust minutes and positions in the game and may change formations but a coach does not give direction during the game.

Take your kid to rec and shout at them from your chair because that is who you are and what you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at it this way your paying for training actually more than you are games usually 3 nights per week 1.5 hrs each session. Games 1 per week 1 hr. So in theory your kid is involved with the entire team "on the field" more than 75% of the time. If your kids not keeping up with the rest of the team as far as development sorry. Its a team game if you want to remain on the team keep up wit everyone else. Its not fair for you to slow down everyone elses development waiting for your kid to catch up.

This is a great point if your ds/dd really loves soccer. The time spent at practices out weigh the games by a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

And just to add to what I said above. My DD needed to play in games because she was an 8 year old girl who loved playing in soccer games! Sitting on the bench watching other girls play more than her made her sad. And it was hurting her confidence. She was feeling like she was not a good soccer player and I knew if we stayed she would end up quitting a sport she loves.

Here is my last piece of advice for anyone not happy with play time for their kids. If you are considering changing teams LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE ROSTER. Ask the coach how many girls/boys he will be rostering. Ask what their theory is on taking additional players mid-year. When teams have too many players - kids don't get to play. For 7 vs 7 teams I think 11 kids is reasonable. For 9 vs 9 teams I would look for 13 kids at most. Once they go to 11 vs 11 it varies according to the age. At U13/U14 I think 15 kids is a reasonable number but once they hit the HS age you need a few more. We are now just entering the HS age and I see girls getting hurt and having to miss games occasionally. When my DD was younger no one EVER missed games. Kids would come sick rather than miss a soccer game.

It's been interesting watching some of the responses to my posting. Makes me think DD's former coach is on here

This is so important. Also ask about the stability of the roster - how many come and go during the season? Are player evaluations given and if so, when? What is the club philosophy on adding players during the season? Are all players on the game day roster? How often do you have players from other teams (either higher of lower or younger) playing during games? How is playing time addressed during games if you have players from other teams?

All of these answers are important. Even if everything some of the PPs say is true in terms of bench players needed to work harder to earn time, there might not be much chance to move up over the course of a season if the club is constantly bringing new players on board or having younger players play up on an already bloated roster. Ask these questions and if you can, ask some parents on the team.

I was a PP who acknowledge being part of the problem with my son's soccer experience, largely because I was trying not to be "one of those parents." I did not move my son, because I bought the line that my kid needed to toughen up and work harder to earn more playing time. That might be good advice for kids who aren't working hard or who have bad attitudes, but in our case, it backfired, because much of what was keeping him off the field was beyond his control. Loss of control tends to mean loss of motivation. He eventually stopped caring because no matter what he did, he wasn't getting anywhere. HE would have an amazing practice, per the coach, and then a younger kid would take his playing time in the next game. If effort does not produce some benefit, you might see that your kid loses confidence and motivation, and that loss carries over into more important things like school.

There has to be some balance, and every kid is different. Don't run from club to club without trying to make things work, including speaking with the coach, but also, don't assume that playing time decisions are fair or based on talent or work ethic. In many cases, there are politics at play and if you kid isn't currently at the top of the heap, factors beyond your kids' control can impact playing time.

And you won't always get the truth either. When we did approach the coaches about playing time, they kept telling us how great our kid is, how hard he works, and that the minutes would be coming, especially when he hits his grown spurt. At another point, we asked if he was too far below the level of the team and whether we should look for another club. They scoffed and said that he would likely be a starter soon. Unfortunately, the minutes (and growth) didn't come fast enough. After years of working hard and riding the bench for long stretches, and watching new kids come onboard who were not better than he is, he reached his breaking point. He still hasn't hit puberty, and he now hates playing soccer and every other sport too.

In the big picture, soccer doesn't matter as much as your child's well-being. Don't be a chronic complainer and don't excuse behavior or attitude on the part of your child. On the other hand, if the environment is psychologically unhealthy for your child, it can have long term consequences. Don't let the old school "toughen up" idiots tell you otherwise. The answer isn't always "your kid sucks - work harder." If there is no communication with your player about where he or she stands and a plan for helping him or her develop and achieve goals, even if the work needs to be done elsewhere or if the game time is very limited, there is no lesson to be learned from the bench. The best of the best are outliers with mental toughness that cannot be undermined. If that isn't your kid, find an environment where the needs of every player are considered and where your kid will want to continue playing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

The assumption that the reason is always talent based shows you don't know what you are talking about. It discredits whatever else you may have to say.

The poster did the correct thing and moved his DD.

When one uses words like "favorites" you really can't be taken seriously and your appraisal of not only other players but of your own is more than biased.

I was the person who said "favorites" and I stand by it. Some of those starters/favorite players regularly missed practices and had less commitment than those who came to every practice and played fewer minutes. Additionally there was not much of a difference in skill level between those playing 70% and those playing 30%. The main problem at the time was that the team had 15 players and they were playing 7 vs 7 with a full-time goalie. So you had 14 kids rotating for 6 field spots. There were probably 2 players who were noticeably better and the rest were pretty much equal in my (and all the other parents) eyes. The only thing I could see was the coach seemed to like the little girls who were more outgoing and the girls who were more shy seemed to play less. Looking back now 4 years removed. I will say that 4 of the "favorites" have left soccer for other sports or have fallen off and no longer are the superstar everyone thought they would be when they were 8-9 years old. 6 of those bench players ended up leaving for other clubs and are all on various competitive ECNL or DA teams and doing fine. Too bad this coach didn't have a crystal ball. He's still out there coaching little girls, overloading rosters and chasing off players because they aren't good enough at 8 years old.

And just to add to what I said above. My DD needed to play in games because she was an 8 year old girl who loved playing in soccer games! Sitting on the bench watching other girls play more than her made her sad. And it was hurting her confidence. She was feeling like she was not a good soccer player and I knew if we stayed she would end up quitting a sport she loves.

Here is my last piece of advice for anyone not happy with play time for their kids. If you are considering changing teams LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE ROSTER. Ask the coach how many girls/boys he will be rostering. Ask what their theory is on taking additional players mid-year. When teams have too many players - kids don't get to play. For 7 vs 7 teams I think 11 kids is reasonable. For 9 vs 9 teams I would look for 13 kids at most. Once they go to 11 vs 11 it varies according to the age. At U13/U14 I think 15 kids is a reasonable number but once they hit the HS age you need a few more. We are now just entering the HS age and I see girls getting hurt and having to miss games occasionally. When my DD was younger no one EVER missed games. Kids would come sick rather than miss a soccer game.

It's been interesting watching some of the responses to my posting. Makes me think DD's former coach is on here

And just to add to what I said above. My DD needed to play in games because she was an 8 year old girl who loved playing in soccer games! Sitting on the bench watching other girls play more than her made her sad. And it was hurting her confidence. She was feeling like she was not a good soccer player and I knew if we stayed she would end up quitting a sport she loves.

Here is my last piece of advice for anyone not happy with play time for their kids. If you are considering changing teams LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE ROSTER. Ask the coach how many girls/boys he will be rostering. Ask what their theory is on taking additional players mid-year. When teams have too many players - kids don't get to play. For 7 vs 7 teams I think 11 kids is reasonable. For 9 vs 9 teams I would look for 13 kids at most. Once they go to 11 vs 11 it varies according to the age. At U13/U14 I think 15 kids is a reasonable number but once they hit the HS age you need a few more. We are now just entering the HS age and I see girls getting hurt and having to miss games occasionally. When my DD was younger no one EVER missed games. Kids would come sick rather than miss a soccer game.

It's been interesting watching some of the responses to my posting. Makes me think DD's former coach is on here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at it this way your paying for training actually more than you are games usually 3 nights per week 1.5 hrs each session. Games 1 per week 1 hr. So in theory your kid is involved with the entire team "on the field" more than 75% of the time. If your kids not keeping up with the rest of the team as far as development sorry. Its a team game if you want to remain on the team keep up wit everyone else. Its not fair for you to slow down everyone elses development waiting for your kid to catch up.

This is a great point if your ds/dd really loves soccer. The time spent at practices out weigh the games by a lot.

Anonymous wrote:Look at it this way your paying for training actually more than you are games usually 3 nights per week 1.5 hrs each session. Games 1 per week 1 hr. So in theory your kid is involved with the entire team "on the field" more than 75% of the time. If your kids not keeping up with the rest of the team as far as development sorry. Its a team game if you want to remain on the team keep up wit everyone else. Its not fair for you to slow down everyone elses development waiting for your kid to catch up.

Anonymous wrote:No, there's no feelings here. As long as we have the evaluation, we know. There's nothing more to say. You are the one who passionately insists it's ok - good even - to not play 9 year olds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

The assumption that the reason is always talent based shows you don't know what you are talking about. It discredits whatever else you may have to say.

The poster did the correct thing and moved his DD.

When one uses words like "favorites" you really can't be taken seriously and your appraisal of not only other players but of your own is more than biased.

I was the person who said "favorites" and I stand by it. Some of those starters/favorite players regularly missed practices and had less commitment than those who came to every practice and played fewer minutes. Additionally there was not much of a difference in skill level between those playing 70% and those playing 30%. The main problem at the time was that the team had 15 players and they were playing 7 vs 7 with a full-time goalie. So you had 14 kids rotating for 6 field spots. There were probably 2 players who were noticeably better and the rest were pretty much equal in my (and all the other parents) eyes. The only thing I could see was the coach seemed to like the little girls who were more outgoing and the girls who were more shy seemed to play less. Looking back now 4 years removed. I will say that 4 of the "favorites" have left soccer for other sports or have fallen off and no longer are the superstar everyone thought they would be when they were 8-9 years old. 6 of those bench players ended up leaving for other clubs and are all on various competitive ECNL or DA teams and doing fine. Too bad this coach didn't have a crystal ball. He's still out there coaching little girls, overloading rosters and chasing off players because they aren't good enough at 8 years old.

And just to add to what I said above. My DD needed to play in games because she was an 8 year old girl who loved playing in soccer games! Sitting on the bench watching other girls play more than her made her sad. And it was hurting her confidence. She was feeling like she was not a good soccer player and I knew if we stayed she would end up quitting a sport she loves.

Here is my last piece of advice for anyone not happy with play time for their kids. If you are considering changing teams LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE ROSTER. Ask the coach how many girls/boys he will be rostering. Ask what their theory is on taking additional players mid-year. When teams have too many players - kids don't get to play. For 7 vs 7 teams I think 11 kids is reasonable. For 9 vs 9 teams I would look for 13 kids at most. Once they go to 11 vs 11 it varies according to the age. At U13/U14 I think 15 kids is a reasonable number but once they hit the HS age you need a few more. We are now just entering the HS age and I see girls getting hurt and having to miss games occasionally. When my DD was younger no one EVER missed games. Kids would come sick rather than miss a soccer game.

It's been interesting watching some of the responses to my posting. Makes me think DD's former coach is on here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

The argumentative poster is nuts and doesn't know what he is talking about. As you say, all of the young players have many, many things they need to work on. The truth is that most coaches judge quality of play based on size, speed, and strength. Who is exhibiting better quality of play at U9? Is it the little kid who dribbles past two opponents and then, when under pressure, sends a pass to his teammate that doesn't quite make it there because it wasn't strong enough? Or the big fast kid who just keeps running straight ahead, kicking the ball and running after it and letting a blistering shot go from anywhere on the field, regardless of where teammates are and regardless of whether the shot as any chance of going in? I guarantee you that the latter kid is the one getting more minutes 8 times out of 10.Chances are, he will score a goal, probably more often than the kid who passed. "Quality" is usually more developed physically and those are the players given more playing time at many clubs.

The funny thing is that those "quality" kids actually take away game touches from every player on the team because of poor first touches and impossible shots with the wrong body position. But they don't get pulled or have minutes reduced like the physically less developed kids. The lesson the kids receive is that the big kid is "really good" and that the bench kid isn't as good unless a coach tells them otherwise.

Ultimately, some of the big kids pan out, but many do not.

Lots of assumptions here. We know none of the context. So far the other players have been called favorites. The OP ADMITTED that their kid was not as talented. Parents form all kinds of crazy biases in their head and let their imagination run wild. But only the coach knows the real reason so for all your sky is falling speculation and hand wringing and hurt feelings the cost of a email or phone call to the coach is free. IN the coaches eyes, your kid is not good enough and until you actually talk to the coach you are just speculating nonsense.

All we know is some kids get less minutes than others. The bigger question is why and be willing to ask why. Perhaps it is because of everything you say. Perhaps it is none of what you say. But when it is your kid regardless of all the nonsense being spouted here is TALK TO THE COACH!

After that do whatever the hell you want to do.

You've said that multiple times. Do you think saying it more often makes it sound better? Or are you trying to Stockholm syndrome convince us through repetition?

1. Any club worth its salt should be doing evaluations already.
2. If a parent wants to try talking to a coach, that's fine. Maybe they will get lucky and get that refund, but reality is it is likely to keep things the same or make them worse. However, talk away if anyone wants.
3. None of that changes what many of us feel: that 9 year olds should be allowed to enjoy the game and PLAY. Let them taste the joy of the game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

The assumption that the reason is always talent based shows you don't know what you are talking about. It discredits whatever else you may have to say.

The poster did the correct thing and moved his DD.

When one uses words like "favorites" you really can't be taken seriously and your appraisal of not only other players but of your own is more than biased.

I was the person who said "favorites" and I stand by it. Some of those starters/favorite players regularly missed practices and had less commitment than those who came to every practice and played fewer minutes. Additionally there was not much of a difference in skill level between those playing 70% and those playing 30%. The main problem at the time was that the team had 15 players and they were playing 7 vs 7 with a full-time goalie. So you had 14 kids rotating for 6 field spots. There were probably 2 players who were noticeably better and the rest were pretty much equal in my (and all the other parents) eyes. The only thing I could see was the coach seemed to like the little girls who were more outgoing and the girls who were more shy seemed to play less. Looking back now 4 years removed. I will say that 4 of the "favorites" have left soccer for other sports or have fallen off and no longer are the superstar everyone thought they would be when they were 8-9 years old. 6 of those bench players ended up leaving for other clubs and are all on various competitive ECNL or DA teams and doing fine. Too bad this coach didn't have a crystal ball. He's still out there coaching little girls, overloading rosters and chasing off players because they aren't good enough at 8 years old.