Anonymous wrote:Ask the coach why he’s throwing players in who have just arrived rather than using the players who were there on time. It’s pretty irresponsible as the players who just arrived haven’t been able to warm up properly. This exposes them to a drop in performance as well as injuries. Your coach should be able to shuffle players around and still put a competitive starting 11 out there. Even if players aren’t in their “ideal” position, they still have skill sets which lend themselves to be able to play other positions in a pinch. Having a base tactical system helps. Making sure the players are exposed to all 10 base tactical systems helps even more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - great explanation!

The OP never took ownership for how to improve an admitted bottom roster skilled player either. The OP simply wants more playing time for their kid without acknowledging the correlation with improvement and playing time.

OP, you don't need to take ownership for your child's alleged lack of skill. That's nonsense. If you child loves playing and works hard, the skill will come. Having been down this road with three kids, each at a different level, do what you can to nurture the love and put your son in a situation where he can play and be happy.

If you expect more playing time on the current team, yes, your kid needs to improve. That is the whole point of travel sports. IF you just want your kid to play then without risk of minutes then look into rec or seek a lower level team.

Anonymous wrote:PP - great explanation!

The OP never took ownership for how to improve an admitted bottom roster skilled player either. The OP simply wants more playing time for their kid without acknowledging the correlation with improvement and playing time.

OP, you don't need to take ownership for your child's alleged lack of skill. That's nonsense. If you child loves playing and works hard, the skill will come. Having been down this road with three kids, each at a different level, do what you can to nurture the love and put your son in a situation where he can play and be happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland

So I hope you are agreeing that young players whose parents are paying for them to play should actually get to play.

Not quite. You are paying for training and agreeing that playing time is earned based on many factors. The parental expectation of a particular amount of playing time can't really be met. You can pay for Private School but can't possibly have any expectation of your kid getting all A's because you paid.

Other examples of playing time such as Belgium are being tossed around and while the 50/50 playing may be adhered to what isn't mentioned is a couple of things. Better talent identification that means better team composition of similarly skilled players as well as a more fluid academy style that allows players to move between teams as the skill levels may be more appropriate for kids advancing or for kids stagnating. But here, because we pay what we pay the expectation is that a kid does not moved from a A team to a B team in order to ensure more playing time. Drop a kid to a B team here mid season and the parents leave. So instead of finding a ore appropriate level within the club the kid will just see fewer minutes and either get better through training or they ultimately leave of their own accord.

Again, referring to the OPs own admission that their kid is admittedly at the bottom of the roster skill wise. The OP isn't asking how their player can get better in order to gain more minutes they simply feel their kid should get more minutes because it would be fair. And frankly that mindset is what Rec sports are about.

If you pay for a private school, you are not paying for your kid to get all A's but you aren't paying for them to sit out in the hall while other kids are actually in the classroom getting taught either.

With regard to Belgium, you are confusing 50% playing time with 50/50 playing time. It's not the same thing, unless you have a bloated roster with double the amount of players needed for the game format.

Let's say it's 7v7 with a roster of 11 (I'd prefer 10). At the end of the 1st quarter, 4 players come off (since you have 4 subs) but 3 stay on. Even if those 3 come off in the 3rd quarter, they have to come back on in the 4th, so they play 3/4 off the game. It's possible 1 of the other players who started on the bench and came on in the 2nd quarter could play the rest of the game. So out of the 11, 4 might play 3/4 of the game, and everyone else will play 1/2.

It's still competitive - not equal - but everyone gets a chance to play, contribute, and develop.

It's really hard to argue that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The OP never took ownership for how to improve an admitted bottom roster skilled player either. The OP simply wants more playing time for their kid without acknowledging the correlation with improvement and playing time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland

So I hope you are agreeing that young players whose parents are paying for them to play should actually get to play.

Not quite. You are paying for training and agreeing that playing time is earned based on many factors. The parental expectation of a particular amount of playing time can't really be met. You can pay for Private School but can't possibly have any expectation of your kid getting all A's because you paid.

Other examples of playing time such as Belgium are being tossed around and while the 50/50 playing may be adhered to what isn't mentioned is a couple of things. Better talent identification that means better team composition of similarly skilled players as well as a more fluid academy style that allows players to move between teams as the skill levels may be more appropriate for kids advancing or for kids stagnating. But here, because we pay what we pay the expectation is that a kid does not moved from a A team to a B team in order to ensure more playing time. Drop a kid to a B team here mid season and the parents leave. So instead of finding a ore appropriate level within the club the kid will just see fewer minutes and either get better through training or they ultimately leave of their own accord.

Again, referring to the OPs own admission that their kid is admittedly at the bottom of the roster skill wise. The OP isn't asking how their player can get better in order to gain more minutes they simply feel their kid should get more minutes because it would be fair. And frankly that mindset is what Rec sports are about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland

So I hope you are agreeing that young players whose parents are paying for them to play should actually get to play.

Not quite. You are paying for training and agreeing that playing time is earned based on many factors. The parental expectation of a particular amount of playing time can't really be met. You can pay for Private School but can't possibly have any expectation of your kid getting all A's because you paid.

Other examples of playing time such as Belgium are being tossed around and while the 50/50 playing may be adhered to what isn't mentioned is a couple of things. Better talent identification that means better team composition of similarly skilled players as well as a more fluid academy style that allows players to move between teams as the skill levels may be more appropriate for kids advancing or for kids stagnating. But here, because we pay what we pay the expectation is that a kid does not moved from a A team to a B team in order to ensure more playing time. Drop a kid to a B team here mid season and the parents leave. So instead of finding a ore appropriate level within the club the kid will just see fewer minutes and either get better through training or they ultimately leave of their own accord.

Again, referring to the OPs own admission that their kid is admittedly at the bottom of the roster skill wise. The OP isn't asking how their player can get better in order to gain more minutes they simply feel their kid should get more minutes because it would be fair. And frankly that mindset is what Rec sports are about.

No - read up. They aren't identifying talent at young ages. I'm not saying we could do that in a country of this size, but the focus for 9 year olds shouldn't be talent identification.

Beyond that, we ARE identifying talent, when a club picks a kid and puts that kids on a team (and accepts the parents' money). The coach identified the kid as a fit for the team and the kid needs to play.

Fair isn't necessarily equal and OP never asked for equal time.

I agree with this perspective, but I know I'm in the minority. It addresses all of these points.

https://soccermommanual.com/playing-time-youth-soccers-big-fail/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland

So I hope you are agreeing that young players whose parents are paying for them to play should actually get to play.

Not quite. You are paying for training and agreeing that playing time is earned based on many factors. The parental expectation of a particular amount of playing time can't really be met. You can pay for Private School but can't possibly have any expectation of your kid getting all A's because you paid.

Other examples of playing time such as Belgium are being tossed around and while the 50/50 playing may be adhered to what isn't mentioned is a couple of things. Better talent identification that means better team composition of similarly skilled players as well as a more fluid academy style that allows players to move between teams as the skill levels may be more appropriate for kids advancing or for kids stagnating. But here, because we pay what we pay the expectation is that a kid does not moved from a A team to a B team in order to ensure more playing time. Drop a kid to a B team here mid season and the parents leave. So instead of finding a ore appropriate level within the club the kid will just see fewer minutes and either get better through training or they ultimately leave of their own accord.

Again, referring to the OPs own admission that their kid is admittedly at the bottom of the roster skill wise. The OP isn't asking how their player can get better in order to gain more minutes they simply feel their kid should get more minutes because it would be fair. And frankly that mindset is what Rec sports are about.

No - read up. They aren't identifying talent at young ages. I'm not saying we could do that in a country of this size, but the focus for 9 year olds shouldn't be talent identification.

Beyond that, we ARE identifying talent, when a club picks a kid and puts that kids on a team (and accepts the parents' money). The coach identified the kid as a fit for the team and the kid needs to play.

Fair isn't necessarily equal and OP never asked for equal time.

I agree with this perspective, but I know I'm in the minority. It addresses all of these points.

https://soccermommanual.com/playing-time-youth-soccers-big-fail/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland

So I hope you are agreeing that young players whose parents are paying for them to play should actually get to play.

Not quite. You are paying for training and agreeing that playing time is earned based on many factors. The parental expectation of a particular amount of playing time can't really be met. You can pay for Private School but can't possibly have any expectation of your kid getting all A's because you paid.

Other examples of playing time such as Belgium are being tossed around and while the 50/50 playing may be adhered to what isn't mentioned is a couple of things. Better talent identification that means better team composition of similarly skilled players as well as a more fluid academy style that allows players to move between teams as the skill levels may be more appropriate for kids advancing or for kids stagnating. But here, because we pay what we pay the expectation is that a kid does not moved from a A team to a B team in order to ensure more playing time. Drop a kid to a B team here mid season and the parents leave. So instead of finding a ore appropriate level within the club the kid will just see fewer minutes and either get better through training or they ultimately leave of their own accord.

Again, referring to the OPs own admission that their kid is admittedly at the bottom of the roster skill wise. The OP isn't asking how their player can get better in order to gain more minutes they simply feel their kid should get more minutes because it would be fair. And frankly that mindset is what Rec sports are about.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why OP wouldn’t just do rec where all the kids get to play? What’s the point in spending a ton of money and driving all around to watch your kid sit out the game?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland

So I hope you are agreeing that young players whose parents are paying for them to play should actually get to play.

Anonymous wrote:but if Loudoun and McLean parents don't keep score how can they determine that their club is the better one?
it would mean they'd have to wait and observe longterm the development of a player socially, technically, and athletically

in the US it is pay to play so you need to know what you are paying for, Belgium is not pay to play nor is Iceland