Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least 1/2 of every game - at all levels of play. The exceptions would be (1) MLSNext at the MLS teams’ own clubs. It’s a different set up there. (2) Discipline reasons and/or red cards (3) goalkeepers. That’s a weird one. It’s possible that a top team has two good keepers. Goodness knows they all would like two. That’s pretty rare though. If it happens then they should get full games.

That’s it. Those are the exceptions. Otherwise, at least 1/2 of every game. The clubs and coaches have a very simple “out” to for not wanting to play a kid at least 1/2 of every game. Don’t put them on the team. If you put a kid on the team, and take the money, then you commit to working to make the kid a better player, and to play the kid at least 1/2 of every game.

“But, we want to win.” Great. Win by making all your players who are on the team better than your opponents. No one gives a crap whether you actually “win” a game. Ask yourself - do you care what team won the MLSNext u17/18 championship last year? How about girls’ ECNL u18? Unless you had a kid on one of those teams - no one cares. And, even then, it’s iffy. At least in high school the trophy will sit in a cabinet down the athletic hallway, and be on the pennant hanging in the gym.

The simple fact is that the job of every coach and team in “high level” youth soccer (basically MLSNext and ECNL) is to try and prepare the players to compete in college or professionally. That purpose has zero to do with winning or losing. No college coach ever said - “I like player X and she would be great on our team, but her u16 team only won 1/2 their games, so I’m not going to try and recruit her.”

Again, it’s simple. 1/2 of every game. Don’t think the kid is good enough to effectively play 1/2 of every game? Fine. Don’t put them on the team. Don’t take their money. Easy.

Should kids who are falling behind technically and putting in “average” effort at practice still get 1/2 the game?

Considering we are 3 weeks into the season yes. Maybe tryouts shouldn't be held 6 months before a season starts if you are worried about chosen kids falling behind. If you are good enough to offer the spot and take your $$ you should get to play.

Anonymous wrote:At least 1/2 of every game - at all levels of play. The exceptions would be (1) MLSNext at the MLS teams’ own clubs. It’s a different set up there. (2) Discipline reasons and/or red cards (3) goalkeepers. That’s a weird one. It’s possible that a top team has two good keepers. Goodness knows they all would like two. That’s pretty rare though. If it happens then they should get full games.

That’s it. Those are the exceptions. Otherwise, at least 1/2 of every game. The clubs and coaches have a very simple “out” to for not wanting to play a kid at least 1/2 of every game. Don’t put them on the team. If you put a kid on the team, and take the money, then you commit to working to make the kid a better player, and to play the kid at least 1/2 of every game.

“But, we want to win.” Great. Win by making all your players who are on the team better than your opponents. No one gives a crap whether you actually “win” a game. Ask yourself - do you care what team won the MLSNext u17/18 championship last year? How about girls’ ECNL u18? Unless you had a kid on one of those teams - no one cares. And, even then, it’s iffy. At least in high school the trophy will sit in a cabinet down the athletic hallway, and be on the pennant hanging in the gym.

The simple fact is that the job of every coach and team in “high level” youth soccer (basically MLSNext and ECNL) is to try and prepare the players to compete in college or professionally. That purpose has zero to do with winning or losing. No college coach ever said - “I like player X and she would be great on our team, but her u16 team only won 1/2 their games, so I’m not going to try and recruit her.”

Again, it’s simple. 1/2 of every game. Don’t think the kid is good enough to effectively play 1/2 of every game? Fine. Don’t put them on the team. Don’t take their money. Easy.

Should kids who are falling behind technically and putting in “average” effort at practice still get 1/2 the game?

Anonymous wrote:

If your kid isn't playing in games, I would start with asking them how much effort they are putting into the practices and how much time are they spending outside of practices working on their ball skills. Chances are playing time is given to the kids who are doing these two things. At the age of 12 the coach can only do so much to "develop" your child - she has to take accountability for how much work she wants to put into her own development.

I've got two very different kids; one who is 100% effort at whatever they are doing and the other is 25-75% effort, depending on how they're feeling that day. It's not hard to see the difference in how they practice. I disagree with the comment about the coach understanding extra effort. We've got some kids who don't show up to all practices, don't put in extra time outside of practice, and then play a ton. Then we've got some who put in extra effort at practice and play soccer 7 days a week and get tons of playing time. And then we've got some who put in tons of effort in and out of practice 7 days a week (not my DC) but don't get playing time If all it took was extra effort, then those 7 day a week kids would be only ones playing, but that's not what's happening on our team. My child works hard at practice, does some extra soccer (not a 7 day a week kid), and is not a top player and that's okay by me. I get that some kids don't have to put in extra effort to be better than my kid, but believing that it's all about effort is just plain wrong for our team and my kid.

I agree that the coach's responsibility is to develop the team and not the individual, and that the individual player has to take responsibility for their development journey. I just so strongly disagree that the extra effort is always rewarded. If it did, the starting lineup and playing time would be dramatically different. Coach wants to win, and that's it. Extra effort doesn't matter. Playing time is not a 1:1 measure of how hard your kid is working and so I would encourage any parent frustrated by their' kids playing time to look for other measures of success. Sure, the best of the best put in tons of effort and play soccer 7 days a week and are genetically gifted, but even on top teams in this area, many of the starters are NOT doing anything extra, they're just genetically gifted. These days, it takes a 100% family effort (not just individual player effort) to make someone the best of the best, and many parents just can't pony up the $ or time so that their kid can do soccer 7x a week with the best trainers, the best small-group training sessions, be on the best futsal team, and train at the best training facilities. What was considered 'extra' when I was a kid is no longer good enough and the bar for what is considered 'extra effort' keeps getting raised.

I find that a lot of coaches play the kids who are putting forth maximum effort at practices. They know that these are the kids who try hard when there is not an audience and are more likely to continue to put forth maximum effort in games.

If your kid isn't playing in games, I would start with asking them how much effort they are putting into the practices and how much time are they spending outside of practices working on their ball skills. Chances are playing time is given to the kids who are doing these two things. At the age of 12 the coach can only do so much to "develop" your child - she has to take accountability for how much work she wants to put into her own development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

We have had to change our mindset over the years and what you said above is exactly where we are at right now. I would much rather have great practices for my child rather than get a ton of playing time. Heck, half the games we play in aren't even competitive games but 100% of practices are very competitive. We had to accept that there are things we can control and things that we cannot. Playing time is not something we can control because the coach decides this and his criteria changes week to week. But our DC can control attitude and effort at practices and how much better they are getting.

It's been a frustrating journey because coach would said things in 1:1 meetings like 'get better at this, and then you'll get more playing time' or 'I give playing time based on effort at practices and games' or 'attendance at practices is mandatory'. But at the end of the day, all that mattered is 'effectiveness' in games, which was defined by however the coach felt that day. There was one player on the team who was constantly injured, rarely showed up to practices and told the team they were quitting at the end of the season; but because they were big and strong and no one could push them off the ball, they got to play a lot. Another child who plays striker is incredibly gifted with athleticism and routinely gets past the opposing defense, but can't shoot to save their life.. yet their parent is the TM so all is forgiven I guess. Last season, my DC did everything coach asked, 'got better at x, showed up to all practices, etc', but they never got much playing time. I know my child was not in the top part of the team and doesn't deserve to play 90%, but to me, playing time is more about the coach and most coaches are never going to admit they made a mistake. Our coach really believes he's following his philosophy of 'hard work => playing time' but all that mattered was winning at the end of the day, whether it was a tournament or a meaningless league game. Once we figured that out, it put everything into perspective about how much we can control. I'll also note that the starting lineup for the team did not change from day 1 of the season to day 300 at the end of the season, which tells you something about how much the coach was willing to change their view of players. Or maybe it says more about his ability to improve the players on the team?

We used to put a lot of pressure on our DC to work harder at practices & games but we realized that that pressure only had a negative impact on their performance. When we stopped pressuring our DC to work harder and to measure their success based on how many game minutes they got, their attitude and confidence suddenly improved. I'm sure it's fun to get all the minutes at a game and make a correlation between how hard your DC works and their playing time but we're on the other side of that debate and it's clear that attitude & effort don't lead to more playing time. To go on a bit of a tangent, I will say it's interesting being a parent of a child who doesn't get a ton of minutes now but I know their future is bright because they're one of the smallest and youngest on the team, is the only one not going through puberty, and yet can keep up with the majority of the team. So I have to imagine that when those bigger & older players start losing playing time when the younger players get to be their size, it's going to be fascinating to hear arguments about 'my DC works hard at practice, why aren't they getting more playing time'.

Anyway, at the end of the day, playing time is not our priority and we no longer measure success based on the # of minutes played. I think it's much healthier for a parent to just accept that you can't control that and instead focus on ensuring your child is having a good time playing soccer. If they really care about minutes, then drop down a team and it'll be less pressure on you and your child. If they really want to be the best they can be, don't worry about minutes. And to answer the original question, I would absolutely be pissed if we traveled far and got no playing time. It's part of the reason we skipped a travel tournament because we knew coach really wanted to win (we lost every game) and we weren't willing to fly somewhere to play less than half the game. I'm not willing to give up entire weekends, miss school, use up our family vacation time, and spend thousands of dollars just to be available in case an injury comes up. Soccer is great and it's fun to watch our DC's team have so much success, but soccer is not the most important thing in life for us.

So for us, we are trying to get as much out of this season as we can with less focus on pleasing the coach and more focus on supporting the long-term growth of our DC. We could get 95% playing time on a lower-level team, but there's a huge gap in skill level between the two teams and it's more likely that our DC would be a better player at the end of the season by practicing with the top-level team but only playing 1/2 of a game. We're also spending less time trying to please the coach this season and more time helping our player get through the season so that they can prepare for next year when there will be a different coach. I agree with so many people on here that the focus on playing time is unhealthy for the parents and the child. It's another one of those soccer parent fallacies, along with 'more practice is always better'. I don't need my child to be the next Messi, and while that is the only goal for many parents on our team, I have no doubt my child will be successful in life, whether or not they played 90% of the game or 50% of the game.

At least 1/2 of every game - at all levels of play. The exceptions would be (1) MLSNext at the MLS teams’ own clubs. It’s a different set up there. (2) Discipline reasons and/or red cards (3) goalkeepers. That’s a weird one. It’s possible that a top team has two good keepers. Goodness knows they all would like two. That’s pretty rare though. If it happens then they should get full games.

That’s it. Those are the exceptions. Otherwise, at least 1/2 of every game. The clubs and coaches have a very simple “out” to for not wanting to play a kid at least 1/2 of every game. Don’t put them on the team. If you put a kid on the team, and take the money, then you commit to working to make the kid a better player, and to play the kid at least 1/2 of every game.

“But, we want to win.” Great. Win by making all your players who are on the team better than your opponents. No one gives a crap whether you actually “win” a game. Ask yourself - do you care what team won the MLSNext u17/18 championship last year? How about girls’ ECNL u18? Unless you had a kid on one of those teams - no one cares. And, even then, it’s iffy. At least in high school the trophy will sit in a cabinet down the athletic hallway, and be on the pennant hanging in the gym.

The simple fact is that the job of every coach and team in “high level” youth soccer (basically MLSNext and ECNL) is to try and prepare the players to compete in college or professionally. That purpose has zero to do with winning or losing. No college coach ever said - “I like player X and she would be great on our team, but her u16 team only won 1/2 their games, so I’m not going to try and recruit her.”

Again, it’s simple. 1/2 of every game. Don’t think the kid is good enough to effectively play 1/2 of every game? Fine. Don’t put them on the team. Don’t take their money. Easy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

What age?

Not PP but I would say U13 and above

I think that's fair, but also level needs to be factored in. Lower level travel should be more equal. If you are that much better than your teammates that you deserve that much more time you should move to a higher tier.

Personally I would see how the season starts. Use a stop watch to track the time so you actually know when the player comes on/off. If playing time continues to be marginal then after 2-3 games request a player meeting with the coach (with you present). Note that playing time has been limited and you would like the player to understand why and what they must do to earn more field time.

Sometimes coaches are dicks. And sometimes players don’t communicate things that the coach tells them on to the parents. While this is a player that should be old enough to handle the conversation with the coach - that is such an extremely low amount of time that there must be a bigger issue at hand that the coach should have communicated already. If a player is attending training, has a good attitude, and is giving good effort they should be playing - if their level is so far below the rest of team then the coach should not have selected them.


Don’t go into it like a fight - go in with genuine interest around what the coach sees and wants from the player and how those decisions are made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

What age?

Not PP but I would say U13 and above

Anonymous wrote:NO coach is going to sit a kid on the bench if that kid can help the team. Development is important and I wonder how this child is doing at practice. Practice is so much more important than any game the kids can play.
It's not fair to "give" playing time to a child because the parents are paying $ if that child isn't up to par to help the team.
A simple conversation with coach about what the child could do to get more playing time is a simple thing to do and get answers.
Coaches will pick up players because they saw something during tryouts but kids can't make a team and then just expect to play.. bottom line, you keep up and DEVELOP or you'll be left behind.

All the comments about the coaches having to "develop" players... guess what... the kids have to put in the effort and DEVELOP themselves, a coach is developing everyone at practices and if the kids don't want it or aren't getting it, a coach can't do much more.

Some want an A just for showing up to school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

What age?

NO coach is going to sit a kid on the bench if that kid can help the team. Development is important and I wonder how this child is doing at practice. Practice is so much more important than any game the kids can play.
It's not fair to "give" playing time to a child because the parents are paying $ if that child isn't up to par to help the team.
A simple conversation with coach about what the child could do to get more playing time is a simple thing to do and get answers.
Coaches will pick up players because they saw something during tryouts but kids can't make a team and then just expect to play.. bottom line, you keep up and DEVELOP or you'll be left behind.

All the comments about the coaches having to "develop" players... guess what... the kids have to put in the effort and DEVELOP themselves, a coach is developing everyone at practices and if the kids don't want it or aren't getting it, a coach can't do much more.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

At MLSNext level, i should hope all of the players are training regularly outside of team practices! The difference maker is being able to use and show those skills when the opportunity comes.

It doesn’t seem fair if u don’t play a lot but when u do get played, for sure, u better make urself visible and impactful.

That’s the only way I’ve seen players go from not being rotated every week to being a regular sub and to even a starter some times. It’s making the limited minutes they play count.

No ok not to go and definitely not ok for you to ask the coach. Either she wants to do travel or not.