I didn't post anything about libel. Sorry, wrong poster. And if you want to keep this going, then stop complaining about the fact it keeps going. I agree with the posters who say at 9, this playing time situation is ridiculous. And the poster is justified in looking for another place for his kid to play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are the one writing such long posts. Seems you are the one keeping this going by refusing to accept that playing half a game regardless of circumstance for a 9 year old player on a team of 8 is a problem. Several posters have disagreed with you but you think that you can drown us all out with the same responses reworded over and over again.

If you'd stop putting words in peoples mouths it would have ended. You continue to accuse people of stating opinions that they have not expressed.

No, I have simply stated that 9 year olds should play. I don't buy into the argument that they should be placed on teams to watch other 9 year olds. And if a parent finds his child in that position and unhappy about it, there is nothing wrong with finding another place for his son to play.

And nobody has disputed that point. Nobody. Ynou are arguing with me as if I have said that this kid should sit. Find one post where I or anyone said that it is ok. What people have said is that YES IT HAPPENS!

Get that through your head.

People have offered reasons for why, ways to handle it, suggestions for leaving, staying, talking to the coach etc.... Nobody ever said it was good for the kids to sit as a general rule. People have tried to offer the coaches perspective in order to help navigate the issue. None of that suggest that people think that "it is ok for kids to sit and watch soccer" And I will continue to post and rebuttal until you stop making that as an assumption or position that I or anyone have taken, because the very nature of shoving those words in my mouth offends me and I will be like a dog on bone and keep repeating the same tired facts over and over again until you understand the difference.

I mean that whole diatribe about libel was crazy. The whole "Name clubs who think it is ok for kids to sit and watch soccer!" because some clubs have a stated minimum to set a realistic benchmark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are the one writing such long posts. Seems you are the one keeping this going by refusing to accept that playing half a game regardless of circumstance for a 9 year old player on a team of 8 is a problem. Several posters have disagreed with you but you think that you can drown us all out with the same responses reworded over and over again.

If you'd stop putting words in peoples mouths it would have ended. You continue to accuse people of stating opinions that they have not expressed.

No, I have simply stated that 9 year olds should play. I don't buy into the argument that they should be placed on teams to watch other 9 year olds. And if a parent finds his child in that position and unhappy about it, there is nothing wrong with finding another place for his son to play.

Anonymous wrote:You are the one writing such long posts. Seems you are the one keeping this going by refusing to accept that playing half a game regardless of circumstance for a 9 year old player on a team of 8 is a problem. Several posters have disagreed with you but you think that you can drown us all out with the same responses reworded over and over again.

If you'd stop putting words in peoples mouths it would have ended. You continue to accuse people of stating opinions that they have not expressed.

You are the one writing such long posts. Seems you are the one keeping this going by refusing to accept that playing half a game regardless of circumstance for a 9 year old player on a team of 8 is a problem. Several posters have disagreed with you but you think that you can drown us all out with the same responses reworded over and over again.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone here is against the player trying to get better. But that doesn't mean we should absolve the coach of responsibility for development.

You are a broken record on things that NOBODY has said!

Nobody has said "it is good that the coach has done that"

When somebody says something along the lines of "playing time is not a guarantee" that is not a value statement. It is simply a statement of fact and that such behavior should be anticipated so buyer beware. You don't have to agree with something for it to be reality. You have a real hard time understanding the difference with people acknowledging reality and people agreeing with the reality.

When a parent says "on my kids travel team he is a sub and he only plays about half a game." and someone says "yeah, that sounds about right for a sub player on any number of teams and playing time generally is earned and not equal on a travel team."

That is not a statement of AGREEMENT. That is a statement of acknowledgement of a fact or of a common experience.

This whole thread would have ended 93 pages ago if you would just see the difference.

I would also add that at age 9, when he's on a bottom/lower team with only 8 kids and he is still spending so much time on the bench, it's a good way to drive him away from the sport. Coaches can crush players before they have had a chance to develop.

I don't think anyone here is against the player trying to get better. But that doesn't mean we should absolve the coach of responsibility for development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact that it is a big club is the problem. Those kids are just numbers and checks to them.

One doesn't need to be so cynical. If kid 8 on that team does not accept the position then 7 kids are without a team. It may not be ideal but at least kids are playing soccer.

Which is why the coach should play him more time. They need him. Instead of keeping him on the bench, play him.

Again, lots of reasons why that may not be happening.

We don't know the level of team
We don't know the experience of the player
We don't really know the quality of the player other than relative to the current small roster.

Frankly, as stated earlier, it sounds to me like the kid is currently behind the other players and needs to catch up some. How far behind is anyone's guess. You are free to disagree but if a coach doesn't feel that a kid is overwhelmed in game then that they need to be brought along more slowly. Developmentally, this is the best case scenario I can really offer.

You are also free to disagree but being a travel team, regardless of roster size and all the other issues the coach is meeting the minimum of expected playing time. Could the coach do better? Yes, but my making this point does not mean I am siding with the coach but the circumstance is the circumstance.

As a parent, if it were me, while I would absolutely be upset over the playing time I would be more concerned of why isn't my kid good enough to crack the starting roster on a team of 8. But, if my kid wasn't a starter, that would always be my concern regardless of the team or dynamics. The goal is to improve and I would be more focused on my kid improving over time.

We can disagree on this point but I feel that there is room to both be frustrated with such a ridiculous line in the sand and the small roster AND still be concerned with how can my child improve so that playing time is never our issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact that it is a big club is the problem. Those kids are just numbers and checks to them.

One doesn't need to be so cynical. If kid 8 on that team does not accept the position then 7 kids are without a team. It may not be ideal but at least kids are playing soccer.

Which is why the coach should play him more time. They need him. Instead of keeping him on the bench, play him.

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact that it is a big club is the problem. Those kids are just numbers and checks to them.

One doesn't need to be so cynical. If kid 8 on that team does not accept the position then 7 kids are without a team. It may not be ideal but at least kids are playing soccer.

I think the fact that it is a big club is the problem. Those kids are just numbers and checks to them.

Anonymous wrote: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.

If it is not a small club then the team is last team on the ladder. If we are talking 4+ teams for the age group and this is the last team then based on that the player likely has a lot of work ahead of them. If a club has 6 teams at U10 and you are kid 58 out of what should be a healthy 60 kids then at that club the player is bubble between rec and travel.

So, on the bright side assuming something above or similar is the case there is likely a lot of low hanging fruit where this kid can focus on and make tremendous strides and leapfrog many of those players. This is not a A team roster that needs to be cracked here and we have little background on the player. Is this the kids first year of travel at U10? If so, then the kid is likely behind but not irrecoverably so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So basically are you saying this person was offered a position on the team due to low roster size?

If a club can only scrape together 8 kids for 7v7, and it is not a known "small club" that has a reputation for developing then it looks like a possibility. But that said, with only 8 kids, the club needs the player more than the player needs the club. So, again, I encourage the parent to talk with the coach about their players development.

Ask why their time has been so limited?
Ask what the player needs to improve to earn more time?
Ask, considering the small roster, regardless, is there a way to increase the minutes of the two subs?

If those questions are not answered to your satisfaction then let them know that you are willing to lighten his substitution burden for him.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So basically are you saying this person was offered a position on the team due to low roster size?