Anonymous wrote:In same position as above and NOT BRYC. Largish well known club.

Anonymous wrote:I think too many people who have smaller less athletic kids try to convince themselves that technical and IQ are the great equalizer. The truth is the more athletic bigger kid has more potential and comes with a higher reward to the club/coach to keep and develop. Genetics is the number one factor in almost all sports soccer included. The amount of work needed to be put in by the smaller less athletic player just to reach the level to compete with the genetically better athletes is more of a risk for the same reward as working with the more athletic kid. Can it be done? Yes absolutely it can. However its really against overwhelming odds. Im sure everyone would be proud to say my kid is Messi or Lebron or JJ Watt. Reality is most kids playing soccer in the US aren't competing with our countries best athletes to begin with. If they are not already standing out head and shoulders above everyone they are playing with now. The chances of them reaching any type of elite status are even lower. Just have your kids put 100% in whatever they do. Whether it be soccer, studies, video games, or making their bed. Teach them to their best at everything they do every time they do it. If they do they be more successful for it. Good habits carry over to all aspects of life.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is entitled Playing Time Expectations. So IMO, a key question might be, when do these genetics assert themselves? Should an 8 or 9 YO see significantly less time than a larger peer even if the child has a great soccer pedigree? Honestly, most coaches have NO idea which kids have soccer-playing parents. So what determines field time? First impression of talent, right? Which perpetuates itself because more field time leads to greater improvement. This is not to say that travel teams should be totally equal. But this IS to say that potential cannot be assumed at these early ages, and there should be at least a 50 percent game minimum, along with position switching, until age 12 or so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think too many people who have smaller less athletic kids try to convince themselves that technical and IQ are the great equalizer. The truth is the more athletic bigger kid has more potential and comes with a higher reward to the club/coach to keep and develop. Genetics is the number one factor in almost all sports soccer included. The amount of work needed to be put in by the smaller less athletic player just to reach the level to compete with the genetically better athletes is more of a risk for the same reward as working with the more athletic kid. Can it be done? Yes absolutely it can. However its really against overwhelming odds. Im sure everyone would be proud to say my kid is Messi or Lebron or JJ Watt. Reality is most kids playing soccer in the US aren't competing with our countries best athletes to begin with. If they are not already standing out head and shoulders above everyone they are playing with now. The chances of them reaching any type of elite status are even lower. Just have your kids put 100% in whatever they do. Whether it be soccer, studies, video games, or making their bed. Teach them to their best at everything they do every time they do it. If they do they be more successful for it. Good habits carry over to all aspects of life.

Yep. +1.

Yet look at 5’8, 145 pound Pulisic crushing it in the Bundesliga and Premiere League. He does have speed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is entitled Playing Time Expectations. So IMO, a key question might be, when do these genetics assert themselves? Should an 8 or 9 YO see significantly less time than a larger peer even if the child has a great soccer pedigree? Honestly, most coaches have NO idea which kids have soccer-playing parents. So what determines field time? First impression of talent, right? Which perpetuates itself because more field time leads to greater improvement. This is not to say that travel teams should be totally equal. But this IS to say that potential cannot be assumed at these early ages, and there should be at least a 50 percent game minimum, along with position switching, until age 12 or so.

Yes our experience is that the reduced playing time based on size starts very young in some places with bad coaches. At U9/U10 the child might play slightly less or not start but by the time it's U11 or U12 they may sit out entire games. Again, this is with BAD coaches. We have seen clumsy big kids who can't kick a ball get put in much of the game because coaches just assume they are better. The small kid has to prove he's better. The lack of playing time builds up and can lead to discouragement. It also makes it feel like less of a team. My child is not big, not small but we don't like the coach's and club's attitude about this so we're leaving. A few teammates have already left. This is at a big club that stresses player development. What a joke.

BRYC loses another one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is entitled Playing Time Expectations. So IMO, a key question might be, when do these genetics assert themselves? Should an 8 or 9 YO see significantly less time than a larger peer even if the child has a great soccer pedigree? Honestly, most coaches have NO idea which kids have soccer-playing parents. So what determines field time? First impression of talent, right? Which perpetuates itself because more field time leads to greater improvement. This is not to say that travel teams should be totally equal. But this IS to say that potential cannot be assumed at these early ages, and there should be at least a 50 percent game minimum, along with position switching, until age 12 or so.

Yes our experience is that the reduced playing time based on size starts very young in some places with bad coaches. At U9/U10 the child might play slightly less or not start but by the time it's U11 or U12 they may sit out entire games. Again, this is with BAD coaches. We have seen clumsy big kids who can't kick a ball get put in much of the game because coaches just assume they are better. The small kid has to prove he's better. The lack of playing time builds up and can lead to discouragement. It also makes it feel like less of a team. My child is not big, not small but we don't like the coach's and club's attitude about this so we're leaving. A few teammates have already left. This is at a big club that stresses player development. What a joke.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is entitled Playing Time Expectations. So IMO, a key question might be, when do these genetics assert themselves? Should an 8 or 9 YO see significantly less time than a larger peer even if the child has a great soccer pedigree? Honestly, most coaches have NO idea which kids have soccer-playing parents. So what determines field time? First impression of talent, right? Which perpetuates itself because more field time leads to greater improvement. This is not to say that travel teams should be totally equal. But this IS to say that potential cannot be assumed at these early ages, and there should be at least a 50 percent game minimum, along with position switching, until age 12 or so.

Anonymous wrote:Whats the one factor you are leaving out ?? genetics !! both of his parents were D1 soccer athletes..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think too many people who have smaller less athletic kids try to convince themselves that technical and IQ are the great equalizer. The truth is the more athletic bigger kid has more potential and comes with a higher reward to the club/coach to keep and develop. Genetics is the number one factor in almost all sports soccer included. The amount of work needed to be put in by the smaller less athletic player just to reach the level to compete with the genetically better athletes is more of a risk for the same reward as working with the more athletic kid. Can it be done? Yes absolutely it can. However its really against overwhelming odds. Im sure everyone would be proud to say my kid is Messi or Lebron or JJ Watt. Reality is most kids playing soccer in the US aren't competing with our countries best athletes to begin with. If they are not already standing out head and shoulders above everyone they are playing with now. The chances of them reaching any type of elite status are even lower. Just have your kids put 100% in whatever they do. Whether it be soccer, studies, video games, or making their bed. Teach them to their best at everything they do every time they do it. If they do they be more successful for it. Good habits carry over to all aspects of life.

Yep. +1.