Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Do you mind sharing which club this is? I've been disappointed with clubs that follow the "equal playing time for all" routine even during tournaments. I get the idea that you can't completely bench a player, or have routinely unbalanced playing times, or parents (and their $) will walk. But at least some tactical player/formation would be good for a tournament. So I'm trying to gauge which clubs are a little more ... competitive ... when it comes to playing time.

My dd’s team lost 3 girls because coach didn’t play them a minute in the final at mclean cup. This was a couple of weeks ago.

Dumb assumptions from a club expecting that parents want to drive out of town to watch their children sit them bench, but keep on with your dirty business and losing players.

They were out of shape and suffering asthma like issues. As soon as they go in the team’s level tanks and goes from predator to prey. How do you justify that to other kids and families that we lose a championship over... irrelevant feelings in travel soccer?

The fault lies with the club for offering roster spots to these kids. The club needs to resolve the situation in a way that is fair to all its paying customers - and simply not playing these kids for even one minute is not a reasonable resolution.

Adding to this a little more:

1. Wanting to win the championship is not a reasonable excuse for giving a kid zero minutes. All teams have weakest players and clearly those players "hurt the team's chances" when they are on the field instead of better players. But they are a part of the team and their net contribution to the team is (or should be) positive when weighing up financial contribution, bodies required for practices, injury and absence coverage etc. etc. In return for making such a contribution they expect, and should receive, a reasonable amount of playing time.

2. If a player is sufficiently weak that his or her net contribution is negative then the club needs to deal with that player fairly by (a) explaining the situation and giving them a chance to improve their performance over a specified period of time, (b) offering them a spot on a lower team or finding another club for them, and/or (c) offering them a refund.

Continuing to accept the player's money and giving them zero minutes is BS. And any parent who thinks that their kid is entitled to have his coach and tournament entry fee etc. subsidized by another kid who will not play at all is a parasite.

Oh - and by the way - the other team is playing its weaker players. If you lose because of your weaker players, you lost because you were the weaker team. If you don't play your weaker players and win you prove nothing except that you didn't believe you could win as a team. And pretty soon you won't have a team.

And no - I'm not saying everyone should get equal playing time. But everybody needs to feel that the deal is working for them - not that some other folks are just taking advantage of them. That is what "team" sports are about. And learning that is the point of playing a team sport in the first place.

If you just want to win at all costs and don't give a darn about your teammates - then go play tennis. Or golf. Or run track. Or shoot pool. Don't play a team sport.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Do you mind sharing which club this is? I've been disappointed with clubs that follow the "equal playing time for all" routine even during tournaments. I get the idea that you can't completely bench a player, or have routinely unbalanced playing times, or parents (and their $) will walk. But at least some tactical player/formation would be good for a tournament. So I'm trying to gauge which clubs are a little more ... competitive ... when it comes to playing time.

My dd’s team lost 3 girls because coach didn’t play them a minute in the final at mclean cup. This was a couple of weeks ago.

They left within 2 weeks? Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Do you mind sharing which club this is? I've been disappointed with clubs that follow the "equal playing time for all" routine even during tournaments. I get the idea that you can't completely bench a player, or have routinely unbalanced playing times, or parents (and their $) will walk. But at least some tactical player/formation would be good for a tournament. So I'm trying to gauge which clubs are a little more ... competitive ... when it comes to playing time.

My dd’s team lost 3 girls because coach didn’t play them a minute in the final at mclean cup. This was a couple of weeks ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Do you mind sharing which club this is? I've been disappointed with clubs that follow the "equal playing time for all" routine even during tournaments. I get the idea that you can't completely bench a player, or have routinely unbalanced playing times, or parents (and their $) will walk. But at least some tactical player/formation would be good for a tournament. So I'm trying to gauge which clubs are a little more ... competitive ... when it comes to playing time.

My dd’s team lost 3 girls because coach didn’t play them a minute in the final at mclean cup. This was a couple of weeks ago.

Dumb assumptions from a club expecting that parents want to drive out of town to watch their children sit them bench, but keep on with your dirty business and losing players.

They were out of shape and suffering asthma like issues. As soon as they go in the team’s level tanks and goes from predator to prey. How do you justify that to other kids and families that we lose a championship over... irrelevant feelings in travel soccer?

The fault lies with the club for offering roster spots to these kids. The club needs to resolve the situation in a way that is fair to all its paying customers - and simply not playing these kids for even one minute is not a reasonable resolution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Do you mind sharing which club this is? I've been disappointed with clubs that follow the "equal playing time for all" routine even during tournaments. I get the idea that you can't completely bench a player, or have routinely unbalanced playing times, or parents (and their $) will walk. But at least some tactical player/formation would be good for a tournament. So I'm trying to gauge which clubs are a little more ... competitive ... when it comes to playing time.

My dd’s team lost 3 girls because coach didn’t play them a minute in the final at mclean cup. This was a couple of weeks ago.

Dumb assumptions from a club expecting that parents want to drive out of town to watch their children sit them bench, but keep on with your dirty business and losing players.

They were out of shape and suffering asthma like issues. As soon as they go in the team’s level tanks and goes from predator to prey. How do you justify that to other kids and families that we lose a championship over... irrelevant feelings in travel soccer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Do you mind sharing which club this is? I've been disappointed with clubs that follow the "equal playing time for all" routine even during tournaments. I get the idea that you can't completely bench a player, or have routinely unbalanced playing times, or parents (and their $) will walk. But at least some tactical player/formation would be good for a tournament. So I'm trying to gauge which clubs are a little more ... competitive ... when it comes to playing time.

My dd’s team lost 3 girls because coach didn’t play them a minute in the final at mclean cup. This was a couple of weeks ago.

Dumb assumptions from a club expecting that parents want to drive out of town to watch their children sit them bench, but keep on with your dirty business and losing players.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Do you mind sharing which club this is? I've been disappointed with clubs that follow the "equal playing time for all" routine even during tournaments. I get the idea that you can't completely bench a player, or have routinely unbalanced playing times, or parents (and their $) will walk. But at least some tactical player/formation would be good for a tournament. So I'm trying to gauge which clubs are a little more ... competitive ... when it comes to playing time.

My dd’s team lost 3 girls because coach didn’t play them a minute in the final at mclean cup. This was a couple of weeks ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just an FYI, you have a better chance to make a team trying out for odd number years. U9, U11, U13, U15.

Apologies if I am being stupid but why is that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Do you mind sharing which club this is? I've been disappointed with clubs that follow the "equal playing time for all" routine even during tournaments. I get the idea that you can't completely bench a player, or have routinely unbalanced playing times, or parents (and their $) will walk. But at least some tactical player/formation would be good for a tournament. So I'm trying to gauge which clubs are a little more ... competitive ... when it comes to playing time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Do you mind sharing which club this is? I've been disappointed with clubs that follow the "equal playing time for all" routine even during tournaments. I get the idea that you can't completely bench a player, or have routinely unbalanced playing times, or parents (and their $) will walk. But at least some tactical player/formation would be good for a tournament. So I'm trying to gauge which clubs are a little more ... competitive ... when it comes to playing time.

Anonymous wrote:Similar to my DS' club/team: Regular season each kid plays at least half the game, but in tournaments all are told that playing time will not be equal, and some will play a lot and others not very much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SO---they put all of the kids they pre-selected on a few small scrimmage fields. Any kids that are looking to transfer from first teams from other clubs also get a chance on those fields right at the start of tryouts. If in the tryout form your kid is listed on a lower team at another club, they will not get a chance to be put in that sorting group. The will get put to the neverland fields.

Most everyone else gets put on a low field where they might have one coach for 'show'. He/she doesn't really watch the tryout and sometimes even has backed turned talking to someone else.

I have a 16-year old and a 13-year old and this is what I have seen at every Club across the DMV.

lol sad but true

+1

Totally !!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SO---they put all of the kids they pre-selected on a few small scrimmage fields. Any kids that are looking to transfer from first teams from other clubs also get a chance on those fields right at the start of tryouts. If in the tryout form your kid is listed on a lower team at another club, they will not get a chance to be put in that sorting group. The will get put to the neverland fields.

Most everyone else gets put on a low field where they might have one coach for 'show'. He/she doesn't really watch the tryout and sometimes even has backed turned talking to someone else.

I have a 16-year old and a 13-year old and this is what I have seen at every Club across the DMV.

lol sad but true

Anonymous wrote:Just an FYI, you have a better chance to make a team trying out for odd number years. U9, U11, U13, U15.