It's not a small club. The OP mentioned that there are multiple travel teams. And with that small a roster and the age of the players, that is indeed why this coach is so troubling.

In fact, what would be better IS finding a smaller club. They tend to be more development focused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Believe me, you are over reacting to the lost 60 minutes of game time for the fall season.

____________________________/

Then why support at all giving that time to some other kid(s)? How is that benefiting the player sitting on the bench? If sitting on the bench is "good" in some way shouldn't the kids getting that extra playing time benefit from the good of sitting on the bench more?


See -- there is no justification for limiting playing time of a u9 kid who does everything that the team asks of him/her. Is the kid practicing hard? Yes. Is the kid showing up on time for games and practices? Yes. Does the kid have a good attitude and work will with teammates? Yes. But, even with all that the kid is not getting the same playing time teammates are getting. Sorry. That's very bad. It would be bad coaching particularly at u9. Frankly, it would be bad coaching at u17 too, but at u9 coaches should be fired for that stuff.

That is definitely the part I don't get. Someone can sit there and argue game time doesn't matter and at the same time justify loading up those game minutes with the same players over and over.

50 minute game. 7v7 with a roster of 10. Please tell us how you get EVERY player the same number of minutes.

And then, assuming you can how many minutes a game per kid is that?

You do it over the course of the season, not in each game. So you can give more minutes to certain players against certain teams and so on. In 2, max 3 games, it's done.

Ok, 7v7
50 minutes
10 kids
10 games go!

Equal minutes over 10 games. How many minutes per kid for the season?

Over the course of 3 games, every kid has a game where they start and play more minutes and games where they don't start and play less minutes. Say 30 minutes for one game and 20 minutes for 2 games. That will make it pretty close. No one is saying exactly perfect, but that's better than 7 kids play 35-40 minutes per game and the same 3 always play 25 minutes per game.

35 minutes a game is to many?

I think to follow the OP's case, there are 8 players on the team. So 6 play full minutes every game (50 minutes) and his DC gets 25 and then the coach has some other player getting sub'd off. It was some scenario like that.

And to distribute perfectly even would mean that all kids get about 43 minutes. A 7 minute decrease from 50 minutes from the special 6 and a increase of 18 minutes per sub up from 25 minutes.

Now could the coach do better sure. But in a game with no timeouts, even though subs are “unlimited” that just means number of players but you only get to sub on your possession unless the other team is subbing on their possession. You can’t call timeout to sub and you would have to sub 5 times per half assuming you could even get the opportunities do even do so. And, subbing takes time on a running clock.

While the idea and math seem good on paper it breaks down in a game where game flow is an important part. Managing 5 subs a 25 minute half would be ludicrous.

I don't think anyone would notice it if at least sometimes this kid got significant minutes too. Instead, 6 are playing double his minutes every single time. That's what is so glaring.

Game minutes aside there are a few glaring issues here.

A U10 team with only 8 kids. This is a recipe for disaster. You could and likely should move but seek a team with a roster between 10-12 kids.

The other glaring issue is that only two kids on the team are even good enough to get in half a game. Anger and everything else aside, this fact should be your primary concern with your kid. This is likely a small club with a roster that is easy to make simply because they need players and still your player isn't strong enough to really crack the roster.

You need an assessment of your kid ASAP from both current club and another club. Your kid could be great and the coach is just an asshat or your kid has some glaring weaknesses and the coach has little confidence. Your coach could frankly just simply want to keep the rotations easy to manage and let the game flow happen without subbing on pretty much every throw in.

While disappointment and frustration are natural to express I'm still baffled by the obvious lack of reading between the lines regarding performance. You can change clubs and probably rightfully so, but it sounds like your player still has some work to do on the side or this type of thing is going to follow you.

This is not meant to be mean spirited and if folks stop being so defensive about these posts you would see that they are honestly just being pragmatic and realistic with he information provided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which by the way, the idea of redistributing the minutes to 43 and adding thos minutes to the subs sounds pretty good every which way I think about it.

Sounds good but it isn’t practical.

Actually it is, very easy. It won't be exactly exact, but it's not that hard to sub every 7 minutes.

Anonymous wrote:Which by the way, the idea of redistributing the minutes to 43 and adding thos minutes to the subs sounds pretty good every which way I think about it.

Sounds good but it isn’t practical.

Which by the way, the idea of redistributing the minutes to 43 and adding thos minutes to the subs sounds pretty good every which way I think about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Believe me, you are over reacting to the lost 60 minutes of game time for the fall season.

____________________________/

Then why support at all giving that time to some other kid(s)? How is that benefiting the player sitting on the bench? If sitting on the bench is "good" in some way shouldn't the kids getting that extra playing time benefit from the good of sitting on the bench more?


See -- there is no justification for limiting playing time of a u9 kid who does everything that the team asks of him/her. Is the kid practicing hard? Yes. Is the kid showing up on time for games and practices? Yes. Does the kid have a good attitude and work will with teammates? Yes. But, even with all that the kid is not getting the same playing time teammates are getting. Sorry. That's very bad. It would be bad coaching particularly at u9. Frankly, it would be bad coaching at u17 too, but at u9 coaches should be fired for that stuff.

That is definitely the part I don't get. Someone can sit there and argue game time doesn't matter and at the same time justify loading up those game minutes with the same players over and over.

50 minute game. 7v7 with a roster of 10. Please tell us how you get EVERY player the same number of minutes.

And then, assuming you can how many minutes a game per kid is that?

You do it over the course of the season, not in each game. So you can give more minutes to certain players against certain teams and so on. In 2, max 3 games, it's done.

Ok, 7v7
50 minutes
10 kids
10 games go!

Equal minutes over 10 games. How many minutes per kid for the season?

Over the course of 3 games, every kid has a game where they start and play more minutes and games where they don't start and play less minutes. Say 30 minutes for one game and 20 minutes for 2 games. That will make it pretty close. No one is saying exactly perfect, but that's better than 7 kids play 35-40 minutes per game and the same 3 always play 25 minutes per game.

35 minutes a game is to many?

I think to follow the OP's case, there are 8 players on the team. So 6 play full minutes every game (50 minutes) and his DC gets 25 and then the coach has some other player getting sub'd off. It was some scenario like that.

And to distribute perfectly even would mean that all kids get about 43 minutes. A 7 minute decrease from 50 minutes from the special 6 and a increase of 18 minutes per sub up from 25 minutes.

Now could the coach do better sure. But in a game with no timeouts, even though subs are “unlimited” that just means number of players but you only get to sub on your possession unless the other team is subbing on their possession. You can’t call timeout to sub and you would have to sub 5 times per half assuming you could even get the opportunities do even do so. And, subbing takes time on a running clock.

While the idea and math seem good on paper it breaks down in a game where game flow is an important part. Managing 5 subs a 25 minute half would be ludicrous.

I don't think anyone would notice it if at least sometimes this kid got significant minutes too. Instead, 6 are playing double his minutes every single time. That's what is so glaring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Believe me, you are over reacting to the lost 60 minutes of game time for the fall season.

____________________________/

Then why support at all giving that time to some other kid(s)? How is that benefiting the player sitting on the bench? If sitting on the bench is "good" in some way shouldn't the kids getting that extra playing time benefit from the good of sitting on the bench more?


See -- there is no justification for limiting playing time of a u9 kid who does everything that the team asks of him/her. Is the kid practicing hard? Yes. Is the kid showing up on time for games and practices? Yes. Does the kid have a good attitude and work will with teammates? Yes. But, even with all that the kid is not getting the same playing time teammates are getting. Sorry. That's very bad. It would be bad coaching particularly at u9. Frankly, it would be bad coaching at u17 too, but at u9 coaches should be fired for that stuff.

That is definitely the part I don't get. Someone can sit there and argue game time doesn't matter and at the same time justify loading up those game minutes with the same players over and over.

50 minute game. 7v7 with a roster of 10. Please tell us how you get EVERY player the same number of minutes.

And then, assuming you can how many minutes a game per kid is that?

You do it over the course of the season, not in each game. So you can give more minutes to certain players against certain teams and so on. In 2, max 3 games, it's done.

Ok, 7v7
50 minutes
10 kids
10 games go!

Equal minutes over 10 games. How many minutes per kid for the season?

Over the course of 3 games, every kid has a game where they start and play more minutes and games where they don't start and play less minutes. Say 30 minutes for one game and 20 minutes for 2 games. That will make it pretty close. No one is saying exactly perfect, but that's better than 7 kids play 35-40 minutes per game and the same 3 always play 25 minutes per game.

35 minutes a game is to many?

I think to follow the OP's case, there are 8 players on the team. So 6 play full minutes every game (50 minutes) and his DC gets 25 and then the coach has some other player getting sub'd off. It was some scenario like that.

And to distribute perfectly even would mean that all kids get about 43 minutes. A 7 minute decrease from 50 minutes from the special 6 and a increase of 18 minutes per sub up from 25 minutes.

Now could the coach do better sure. But in a game with no timeouts, even though subs are “unlimited” that just means number of players but you only get to sub on your possession unless the other team is subbing on their possession. You can’t call timeout to sub and you would have to sub 5 times per half assuming you could even get the opportunities do even do so. And, subbing takes time on a running clock.

While the idea and math seem good on paper it breaks down in a game where game flow is an important part. Managing 5 subs a 25 minute half would be ludicrous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Believe me, you are over reacting to the lost 60 minutes of game time for the fall season.

____________________________/

Then why support at all giving that time to some other kid(s)? How is that benefiting the player sitting on the bench? If sitting on the bench is "good" in some way shouldn't the kids getting that extra playing time benefit from the good of sitting on the bench more?


See -- there is no justification for limiting playing time of a u9 kid who does everything that the team asks of him/her. Is the kid practicing hard? Yes. Is the kid showing up on time for games and practices? Yes. Does the kid have a good attitude and work will with teammates? Yes. But, even with all that the kid is not getting the same playing time teammates are getting. Sorry. That's very bad. It would be bad coaching particularly at u9. Frankly, it would be bad coaching at u17 too, but at u9 coaches should be fired for that stuff.

That is definitely the part I don't get. Someone can sit there and argue game time doesn't matter and at the same time justify loading up those game minutes with the same players over and over.

50 minute game. 7v7 with a roster of 10. Please tell us how you get EVERY player the same number of minutes.

And then, assuming you can how many minutes a game per kid is that?

You do it over the course of the season, not in each game. So you can give more minutes to certain players against certain teams and so on. In 2, max 3 games, it's done.

Ok, 7v7
50 minutes
10 kids
10 games go!

Equal minutes over 10 games. How many minutes per kid for the season?

Over the course of 3 games, every kid has a game where they start and play more minutes and games where they don't start and play less minutes. Say 30 minutes for one game and 20 minutes for 2 games. That will make it pretty close. No one is saying exactly perfect, but that's better than 7 kids play 35-40 minutes per game and the same 3 always play 25 minutes per game.

35 minutes a game is to many?

I think to follow the OP's case, there are 8 players on the team. So 6 play full minutes every game (50 minutes) and his DC gets 25 and then the coach has some other player getting sub'd off. It was some scenario like that.

If you want exact math, you could alternatively give every player 35 minutes per game, but just not the same 35. It distributes out over the game. With 7 players playing full minutes, that would be 350 minutes of total playing time, distributed across 10 players, that's 35 minutes per player. And U10 has unlimited sub rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Believe me, you are over reacting to the lost 60 minutes of game time for the fall season.

____________________________/

Then why support at all giving that time to some other kid(s)? How is that benefiting the player sitting on the bench? If sitting on the bench is "good" in some way shouldn't the kids getting that extra playing time benefit from the good of sitting on the bench more?


See -- there is no justification for limiting playing time of a u9 kid who does everything that the team asks of him/her. Is the kid practicing hard? Yes. Is the kid showing up on time for games and practices? Yes. Does the kid have a good attitude and work will with teammates? Yes. But, even with all that the kid is not getting the same playing time teammates are getting. Sorry. That's very bad. It would be bad coaching particularly at u9. Frankly, it would be bad coaching at u17 too, but at u9 coaches should be fired for that stuff.

That is definitely the part I don't get. Someone can sit there and argue game time doesn't matter and at the same time justify loading up those game minutes with the same players over and over.

50 minute game. 7v7 with a roster of 10. Please tell us how you get EVERY player the same number of minutes.

And then, assuming you can how many minutes a game per kid is that?

You do it over the course of the season, not in each game. So you can give more minutes to certain players against certain teams and so on. In 2, max 3 games, it's done.

Ok, 7v7
50 minutes
10 kids
10 games go!

Equal minutes over 10 games. How many minutes per kid for the season?

Over the course of 3 games, every kid has a game where they start and play more minutes and games where they don't start and play less minutes. Say 30 minutes for one game and 20 minutes for 2 games. That will make it pretty close. No one is saying exactly perfect, but that's better than 7 kids play 35-40 minutes per game and the same 3 always play 25 minutes per game.

35 minutes a game is to many?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Believe me, you are over reacting to the lost 60 minutes of game time for the fall season.

____________________________/

Then why support at all giving that time to some other kid(s)? How is that benefiting the player sitting on the bench? If sitting on the bench is "good" in some way shouldn't the kids getting that extra playing time benefit from the good of sitting on the bench more?


See -- there is no justification for limiting playing time of a u9 kid who does everything that the team asks of him/her. Is the kid practicing hard? Yes. Is the kid showing up on time for games and practices? Yes. Does the kid have a good attitude and work will with teammates? Yes. But, even with all that the kid is not getting the same playing time teammates are getting. Sorry. That's very bad. It would be bad coaching particularly at u9. Frankly, it would be bad coaching at u17 too, but at u9 coaches should be fired for that stuff.

That is definitely the part I don't get. Someone can sit there and argue game time doesn't matter and at the same time justify loading up those game minutes with the same players over and over.

50 minute game. 7v7 with a roster of 10. Please tell us how you get EVERY player the same number of minutes.

And then, assuming you can how many minutes a game per kid is that?

You do it over the course of the season, not in each game. So you can give more minutes to certain players against certain teams and so on. In 2, max 3 games, it's done.

Ok, 7v7
50 minutes
10 kids
10 games go!

Equal minutes over 10 games. How many minutes per kid for the season?

Over the course of 3 games, every kid has a game where they start and play more minutes and games where they don't start and play less minutes. Say 30 minutes for one game and 20 minutes for 2 games. That will make it pretty close. No one is saying exactly perfect, but that's better than 7 kids play 35-40 minutes per game and the same 3 always play 25 minutes per game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Believe me, you are over reacting to the lost 60 minutes of game time for the fall season.

____________________________/

Then why support at all giving that time to some other kid(s)? How is that benefiting the player sitting on the bench? If sitting on the bench is "good" in some way shouldn't the kids getting that extra playing time benefit from the good of sitting on the bench more?


See -- there is no justification for limiting playing time of a u9 kid who does everything that the team asks of him/her. Is the kid practicing hard? Yes. Is the kid showing up on time for games and practices? Yes. Does the kid have a good attitude and work will with teammates? Yes. But, even with all that the kid is not getting the same playing time teammates are getting. Sorry. That's very bad. It would be bad coaching particularly at u9. Frankly, it would be bad coaching at u17 too, but at u9 coaches should be fired for that stuff.

That is definitely the part I don't get. Someone can sit there and argue game time doesn't matter and at the same time justify loading up those game minutes with the same players over and over.

50 minute game. 7v7 with a roster of 10. Please tell us how you get EVERY player the same number of minutes.

And then, assuming you can how many minutes a game per kid is that?

You do it over the course of the season, not in each game. So you can give more minutes to certain players against certain teams and so on. In 2, max 3 games, it's done.

Ok, 7v7
50 minutes
10 kids
10 games go!

Equal minutes over 10 games. How many minutes per kid for the season?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Believe me, you are over reacting to the lost 60 minutes of game time for the fall season.

____________________________/

Then why support at all giving that time to some other kid(s)? How is that benefiting the player sitting on the bench? If sitting on the bench is "good" in some way shouldn't the kids getting that extra playing time benefit from the good of sitting on the bench more?


See -- there is no justification for limiting playing time of a u9 kid who does everything that the team asks of him/her. Is the kid practicing hard? Yes. Is the kid showing up on time for games and practices? Yes. Does the kid have a good attitude and work will with teammates? Yes. But, even with all that the kid is not getting the same playing time teammates are getting. Sorry. That's very bad. It would be bad coaching particularly at u9. Frankly, it would be bad coaching at u17 too, but at u9 coaches should be fired for that stuff.

That is definitely the part I don't get. Someone can sit there and argue game time doesn't matter and at the same time justify loading up those game minutes with the same players over and over.

50 minute game. 7v7 with a roster of 10. Please tell us how you get EVERY player the same number of minutes.

And then, assuming you can how many minutes a game per kid is that?

You do it over the course of the season, not in each game. So you can give more minutes to certain players against certain teams and so on. In 2, max 3 games, it's done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Believe me, you are over reacting to the lost 60 minutes of game time for the fall season.

____________________________/

Then why support at all giving that time to some other kid(s)? How is that benefiting the player sitting on the bench? If sitting on the bench is "good" in some way shouldn't the kids getting that extra playing time benefit from the good of sitting on the bench more?


See -- there is no justification for limiting playing time of a u9 kid who does everything that the team asks of him/her. Is the kid practicing hard? Yes. Is the kid showing up on time for games and practices? Yes. Does the kid have a good attitude and work will with teammates? Yes. But, even with all that the kid is not getting the same playing time teammates are getting. Sorry. That's very bad. It would be bad coaching particularly at u9. Frankly, it would be bad coaching at u17 too, but at u9 coaches should be fired for that stuff.

That is definitely the part I don't get. Someone can sit there and argue game time doesn't matter and at the same time justify loading up those game minutes with the same players over and over.

50 minute game. 7v7 with a roster of 10. Please tell us how you get EVERY player the same number of minutes.

And then, assuming you can how many minutes a game per kid is that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so a lot of people have posted the names of clubs with a rule that kids under U9-U12 get to play at least 50% during league play. So which travel clubs adhere to a rule of giving equal play time to all players?

Most don't post an actual playing time amount. I think clubs don't like to have it in writing, but I wouldn't say the norm is to bench 9 year olds. Some clubs are better at development than others and the best answer is to take this all as a cautionary tale and have good conversations before clicking "accept" . That won't give you necessarily a guarantee, but it will increase the odds. And if it doesn't work out, don't feel obliged to yet another year of it. Find another place for your DC to play.

OMG get off the bench 9 year olds crap. The OP said that their kid plays about half a game. That is a far cry from playing only 10 minutes a game. Not a single effing person has condoned BENCHING kids. You can say it as many times as you would like but that does not mean anyone has said it.

No, nobody wants to see kids sitting in games. Period.

The playing minimum for rec, which is as close to equal playing time as possible says 50% minimum. ALL sports that my kids have played in during those ages the coaches have stated that as the minimum. I have NEVER seen a soccer club or other sport that has failed to meet that minimum. The OP doesn’t even claim less than that.

And while most travel clubs make no guarantee regarding playing time WHEN they do state a guideline it is within the 50% threshold that rec soccer as well as other youth sports use.