Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Years and years of travel with multiple kids, and one thing I've learned is that it's a balance. Good clubs know how to nurture and develop players, and at age 9, to inspire them to become better. The anticipation of being able to play and put what they work on during the week into the game is an important part of the experience. Not every kid played at the same level, but all played where they could actually play. It made them better players and better teammates. They learned so much from being able to get on the field.

I agree with this entirely. But apparently if I recommend that people have a dialog with their coach about how their kid can improve what I am really saying is kids should play only ten minutes a game and be happy about it.

I've never found those conversations to be helpful, and they are very often punitive, no matter how it is approached. What I have taught them is to ask the coach themselves and take responsibility for that and to listen to the evaluations carefully. If they have a bad experience one year, it's a life lesson. Work hard, learn what you can and then after the commitment is over, we find somewhere else to play. If it's not a good fit, that's ok. But if someone can get their DC released and get that refund, that's awesome. That club deserves kudos for doing the right thing when most clubs wouldn't.

Anonymous wrote:Years and years of travel with multiple kids, and one thing I've learned is that it's a balance. Good clubs know how to nurture and develop players, and at age 9, to inspire them to become better. The anticipation of being able to play and put what they work on during the week into the game is an important part of the experience. Not every kid played at the same level, but all played where they could actually play. It made them better players and better teammates. They learned so much from being able to get on the field.

I agree with this entirely. But apparently if I recommend that people have a dialog with their coach about how their kid can improve what I am really saying is kids should play only ten minutes a game and be happy about it.

Years and years of travel with multiple kids, and one thing I've learned is that it's a balance. Good clubs know how to nurture and develop players, and at age 9, to inspire them to become better. The anticipation of being able to play and put what they work on during the week into the game is an important part of the experience. Not every kid played at the same level, but all played where they could actually play. It made them better players and better teammates. They learned so much from being able to get on the field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the person that seems like a travel coach advocating for the weakest player to watch games. Put it this way, Games are fun. Fun means returning to the team. Playing less than 50% is no fun to someone who thinks fun is top priority. You can't argue what is fun to someone. And yes, people do talk to coaches and nothing changes until the starters no longer produces results. Why are you so persistent in arguing with a rec parent? It's showing immaturity and lack of decision making on your part. The rec parent wants a lot of playing time. ok. So what, let him have it. Be the bigger person.

Then why are you not playing in rec? Why are you choosing travel over rec?

Well, obviously because we are dumb enough to believe that if our children love soccer, and are willing to put the work in to get better, we might be able to find professional coaches interested in nurturing their development, along with teammates with similar interests.

I agree that kids who are not that good and not interested in getting better would be better suited for rec. But the interested kids working hard to get better tend to not have much fun in the rec environment, where players don't attend practice and many don't even show up for games.

Ive got news for you, if at 9 years old you are hung up over 5-10 minutes on a Sunday morning travel isn't for you.

You must be a troll, a horrible person, your attitude is poor, horrible coach, or all the above. I wonder if your team is happy with you. You shouldn't be near kids.

+1. And he's like a dog with a bone. Over and over again, about how 9 year olds shouldn't get to enjoy the game. It's ridiculous.

When did I ever say kids shouldn't get to enjoy the game.

Travel game minutes are not guaranteed. That is just a fact. Accept it or not. If the game minutes are what are going to ultimately going to decide your kids enjoyment then find the right level for your kid or play rec. Equal play is not a priority in travel soccer. There are always going ot be kids who will play more than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the person that seems like a travel coach advocating for the weakest player to watch games. Put it this way, Games are fun. Fun means returning to the team. Playing less than 50% is no fun to someone who thinks fun is top priority. You can't argue what is fun to someone. And yes, people do talk to coaches and nothing changes until the starters no longer produces results. Why are you so persistent in arguing with a rec parent? It's showing immaturity and lack of decision making on your part. The rec parent wants a lot of playing time. ok. So what, let him have it. Be the bigger person.

Then why are you not playing in rec? Why are you choosing travel over rec?

Well, obviously because we are dumb enough to believe that if our children love soccer, and are willing to put the work in to get better, we might be able to find professional coaches interested in nurturing their development, along with teammates with similar interests.

I agree that kids who are not that good and not interested in getting better would be better suited for rec. But the interested kids working hard to get better tend to not have much fun in the rec environment, where players don't attend practice and many don't even show up for games.

Ive got news for you, if at 9 years old you are hung up over 5-10 minutes on a Sunday morning travel isn't for you.

You must be a troll, a horrible person, your attitude is poor, horrible coach, or all the above. I wonder if your team is happy with you. You shouldn't be near kids.

+1. And he's like a dog with a bone. Over and over again, about how 9 year olds shouldn't get to enjoy the game. It's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Myth
Clubs are mostly non-profit. FCV and Barca are the only profit clubs in the region.

Not PP. but Myth? Non-Profits still need revenue and the more the better. How else pay for coaches, directors, turf and lights?

And have you seen the salaries some of the non-profits pay their (multiple layers of) directors?

And if you look at the books the biggest profit margin is actually in a large rec program and not travel. Travel has far more overhead than rec and the profit margins are razor thin but keep on keeping on with the myth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the person that seems like a travel coach advocating for the weakest player to watch games. Put it this way, Games are fun. Fun means returning to the team. Playing less than 50% is no fun to someone who thinks fun is top priority. You can't argue what is fun to someone. And yes, people do talk to coaches and nothing changes until the starters no longer produces results. Why are you so persistent in arguing with a rec parent? It's showing immaturity and lack of decision making on your part. The rec parent wants a lot of playing time. ok. So what, let him have it. Be the bigger person.

Then why are you not playing in rec? Why are you choosing travel over rec?

Well, obviously because we are dumb enough to believe that if our children love soccer, and are willing to put the work in to get better, we might be able to find professional coaches interested in nurturing their development, along with teammates with similar interests.

I agree that kids who are not that good and not interested in getting better would be better suited for rec. But the interested kids working hard to get better tend to not have much fun in the rec environment, where players don't attend practice and many don't even show up for games.

Ive got news for you, if at 9 years old you are hung up over 5-10 minutes on a Sunday morning travel isn't for you.

You must be a troll, a horrible person, your attitude is poor, horrible coach, or all the above. I wonder if your team is happy with you. You shouldn't be near kids.

Nope, quite the opposite. I'm happy where my kids are playing. I have a good relationship with current and past coaches. I have no entitlement issues with my kids and their clubs. I ask opinions and advice from coaches and parents. The more people I talk to the more things I learn not only about my kids but also about the perception of them that coaches have.

I've learned to trust my eyes and my ears. I try and enjoy the game, the team, the parents, the coaches and the players on their terms not mine.

I get frustrated at times, I also am proud sometimes. It is a long road and the reality is identify the level and commitment that is right for your kid and your family. If you think suggesting rec is a snub, it is not. But if you want all the benefits of rec but the "prestige" of travel that you have built up in your mind you will not be happy. They are not the same, they are not run the same and they do not have the same goals.

Playing time expectations from a variety of clubs have been posted. 50% playing time is the only number any club will offer as a goal for playing time in travel. That's it. That is what you are signing up for. If that does not meet your expectations then you are in the wrong place. Right or wrong, regardless of what you want to believe travel soccer should be that is what it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Myth
Clubs are mostly non-profit. FCV and Barca are the only profit clubs in the region.

Not PP. but Myth? Non-Profits still need revenue and the more the better. How else pay for coaches, directors, turf and lights?

And have you seen the salaries some of the non-profits pay their (multiple layers of) directors?

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Myth
Clubs are mostly non-profit. FCV and Barca are the only profit clubs in the region.

Not PP. but Myth? Non-Profits still need revenue and the more the better. How else pay for coaches, directors, turf and lights?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the person that seems like a travel coach advocating for the weakest player to watch games. Put it this way, Games are fun. Fun means returning to the team. Playing less than 50% is no fun to someone who thinks fun is top priority. You can't argue what is fun to someone. And yes, people do talk to coaches and nothing changes until the starters no longer produces results. Why are you so persistent in arguing with a rec parent? It's showing immaturity and lack of decision making on your part. The rec parent wants a lot of playing time. ok. So what, let him have it. Be the bigger person.

Then why are you not playing in rec? Why are you choosing travel over rec?

Well, obviously because we are dumb enough to believe that if our children love soccer, and are willing to put the work in to get better, we might be able to find professional coaches interested in nurturing their development, along with teammates with similar interests.

I agree that kids who are not that good and not interested in getting better would be better suited for rec. But the interested kids working hard to get better tend to not have much fun in the rec environment, where players don't attend practice and many don't even show up for games.

Ive got news for you, if at 9 years old you are hung up over 5-10 minutes on a Sunday morning travel isn't for you.

You must be a troll, a horrible person, your attitude is poor, horrible coach, or all the above. I wonder if your team is happy with you. You shouldn't be near kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the person that seems like a travel coach advocating for the weakest player to watch games. Put it this way, Games are fun. Fun means returning to the team. Playing less than 50% is no fun to someone who thinks fun is top priority. You can't argue what is fun to someone. And yes, people do talk to coaches and nothing changes until the starters no longer produces results. Why are you so persistent in arguing with a rec parent? It's showing immaturity and lack of decision making on your part. The rec parent wants a lot of playing time. ok. So what, let him have it. Be the bigger person.

Then why are you not playing in rec? Why are you choosing travel over rec?

Well, obviously because we are dumb enough to believe that if our children love soccer, and are willing to put the work in to get better, we might be able to find professional coaches interested in nurturing their development, along with teammates with similar interests.

I agree that kids who are not that good and not interested in getting better would be better suited for rec. But the interested kids working hard to get better tend to not have much fun in the rec environment, where players don't attend practice and many don't even show up for games.

Ive got news for you, if at 9 years old you are hung up over 5-10 minutes on a Sunday morning travel isn't for you.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the person that seems like a travel coach advocating for the weakest player to watch games. Put it this way, Games are fun. Fun means returning to the team. Playing less than 50% is no fun to someone who thinks fun is top priority. You can't argue what is fun to someone. And yes, people do talk to coaches and nothing changes until the starters no longer produces results. Why are you so persistent in arguing with a rec parent? It's showing immaturity and lack of decision making on your part. The rec parent wants a lot of playing time. ok. So what, let him have it. Be the bigger person.

Bolded

Yes, that is how it works in competitive sports. Nothing changes until the starters stop producing or the bench players start producing. That is how competition based on merit works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the person that seems like a travel coach advocating for the weakest player to watch games. Put it this way, Games are fun. Fun means returning to the team. Playing less than 50% is no fun to someone who thinks fun is top priority. You can't argue what is fun to someone. And yes, people do talk to coaches and nothing changes until the starters no longer produces results. Why are you so persistent in arguing with a rec parent? It's showing immaturity and lack of decision making on your part. The rec parent wants a lot of playing time. ok. So what, let him have it. Be the bigger person.

Then why are you not playing in rec? Why are you choosing travel over rec?

Well, obviously because we are dumb enough to believe that if our children love soccer, and are willing to put the work in to get better, we might be able to find professional coaches interested in nurturing their development, along with teammates with similar interests.

I agree that kids who are not that good and not interested in getting better would be better suited for rec. But the interested kids working hard to get better tend to not have much fun in the rec environment, where players don't attend practice and many don't even show up for games.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Thank you again. Your posts have been among the most valuable on the thread. It's good insight and we'll said.

Going from 4v4 free for all soccer at 7 to travel soccer with substitutions, throw ins, build out line a goalie and twice the number of players on the field is a jarring experience. But what did you expect going from 4v4 rec to travel?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the person that seems like a travel coach advocating for the weakest player to watch games. Put it this way, Games are fun. Fun means returning to the team. Playing less than 50% is no fun to someone who thinks fun is top priority. You can't argue what is fun to someone. And yes, people do talk to coaches and nothing changes until the starters no longer produces results. Why are you so persistent in arguing with a rec parent? It's showing immaturity and lack of decision making on your part. The rec parent wants a lot of playing time. ok. So what, let him have it. Be the bigger person.

Then why are you not playing in rec? Why are you choosing travel over rec?