|
|
Post by greenmonkey on Jan 11, 2020 15:06:16 GMT -5
What exactly does the pay to play formula equate to for playing time?
Looking at all ages U14 and below since they have unlimited substitutions allowed.
Should parents expect all players to play at least half a game?
or
Should parents expect that each player will play exactly the same amount of minutes per game?
Looking at U15 and above with only limited substitutions allowed what does pay to play look like?
Not talking about what coaches really do LOL
What I am asking is in this pay to play environment where parents have rights and expectations that THEY PAY so THEIR KID PLAYS ... what do you think everyone plays at least half or everyone plays an equal amount?
And how would you handle player rotations and substitutions ... almost like hockey lines coming in and out?
|
|
|
|
Post by soccernoleuk on Jan 11, 2020 19:15:15 GMT -5
For U14 and below I believe pay to play means the player has the opportunity to play half the game or more, provided they earn it. What I mean by earning it is, they show up for practice and games. If a player misses practices and/or games, they shouldn't be guaranteed a half or anything. I don't care if you are the best player on the team, if you don't come to practice, or skip games, when you are there you shouldn't be guaranteed anything. If you are the worst player on the team, but attend all practices and games, you should get at least half the game...no matter what.
For U15 and above, since there are limited substitutions as you mention, playing time is harder to guarantee. However, I would say everyone deserves to play if they are dedicated enough to show up to practices & games. I don't care if the player is the worst player on an ECNL team of 17-18 players, if they attend practices & games they should get some playing time. I also don't care if the player is the best on the team, if they skip practices and/or some games, their playing time should suffer.
|
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 13, 2020 12:09:46 GMT -5
So basically, if you have a really good player - don't invest the time and money until they are U15.
The equal playing time at ECNL level is a complete joke. Players should only be replaced if they are fatigued or injured. And if any player has a bad attitude, they shouldn't play at all. Period.
Starting players should work hard to start, and keep their spot, and they should always know that the players sitting on the bench are working fiercely to take their starting spot away. That's how competition works - with sports, jobs, and life.
I find it interesting that in European soccer they relegate the worst players and teams, while in the US they are super soft on those who don't perform at their best. Not to be political - but in a way, it's like soccer socialism.
The 'everyone wins' attitude is absurd, and doesn't teach players a thing, except to become complacent and think mediocracy is good enough. I think coaches who adhere to this philosophy are doing players more of disservice, rather than good, and that coaching philosophy should be relegated to rec. soccer.
|
|
|
|
Post by atv on Jan 13, 2020 12:28:08 GMT -5
So basically, if you have a really good player - don't invest the time and money until they are U15. The equal playing time at ECNL level is a complete joke. Players should only be replaced if they are fatigued or injured. And if any player has a bad attitude, they shouldn't play at all. Period. Starting players should work hard to start, and keep their spot, and they should always know that the players sitting on the bench are working fiercely to take their starting spot away. That's how competition works - with sports, jobs, and life. I find it interesting that in European soccer they relegate the worst players and teams, while in the US they are super soft on those who don't perform at their best. Not to be political - but in a way, it's like soccer socialism. The 'everyone wins' attitude is absurd, and doesn't teach players a thing, except to become complacent and think mediocracy is good enough. I think coaches who adhere to this philosophy are doing players more of disservice, rather than good, and that coaching philosophy should be relegated to rec. soccer. Agree with most of this. I am not a fan of guaranteed playing time U15 and above. Competitive sports are selective and not meant to be fair. The liberal playing time doesn’t happen in any other youth sport as much as it does in soccer. |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 13, 2020 15:23:53 GMT -5
Sweet, just make it free like Europe and they can be super-duper-selective. As long as you're still taking customer's money...you have to keep the customers happy.
This is a boys/mens topic once you start talking about Europe. Pay to play and the top levels of the sport on the girl's side are completely different, hence why Europeans take up plenty of scholarships in college.
|
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 13, 2020 18:36:33 GMT -5
I think you can make the 'paying' customers happy by selecting, and playing the best players with the best attitudes.
Should 'A' level players and 'B' level players play on the same team with equal playing time? Should the kid who rolls their eyes, and doesn't show up for practice get the same playing time as the kid who shows up with a good attitude and puts in maximum effort? Because that's exactly what happens. And believe me - that aggravates parents even more. At a certain level, parents and kids should know that they need to earn their playing time. It's similar to respect - you don't just get respect - you have to earn it.
I think there are enough club/leagues, with many talent levels that this shouldn't happen. If you don't get enough playing time on DA, move down to ECNL, if you don't get playing time on ECNL, move down to SCCL, etc. It shouldn't be a money grab to fill the rosters with as many players as possible (regardless of talent or attitude). Not sure how that benefits anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by atv on Jan 29, 2020 14:46:21 GMT -5
It would be interesting to see the average percent playing time of the top 11 players versus the typical substitute players by league. For example ECNL, DA, National League, Classic level. My general thoughts are playing time in ECNL is dished out where every player is generally playing at least half of the game. This is probably true for SCCL as well. DA is highly skewed to the top 11 with some “bench” players barely seeing the field. National League and Classic level teams are probably a mixed bag. Are these assumptions right?
|
|
|
|
Post by fridge on Jan 29, 2020 16:32:41 GMT -5
So basically, if you have a really good player - don't invest the time and money until they are U15. The equal playing time at ECNL level is a complete joke. Players should only be replaced if they are fatigued or injured. And if any player has a bad attitude, they shouldn't play at all. Period. Starting players should work hard to start, and keep their spot, and they should always know that the players sitting on the bench are working fiercely to take their starting spot away. That's how competition works - with sports, jobs, and life. I find it interesting that in European soccer they relegate the worst players and teams, while in the US they are super soft on those who don't perform at their best. Not to be political - but in a way, it's like soccer socialism. The 'everyone wins' attitude is absurd, and doesn't teach players a thing, except to become complacent and think mediocracy is good enough. I think coaches who adhere to this philosophy are doing players more of disservice, rather than good, and that coaching philosophy should be relegated to rec. soccer. I'm not sure where your quote-- "equal playing time at ECNL level" comes from. I have a girl whose done ECNL, DA and then back to ECNL for CF. The philosophy of any coaches or the club/CF re playing time did not change whatsoever. Because of more lax sub rules in ECNL (like NCAA), the coaches may give a starter a breather the last 10 minutes of the first half or the first 10 minutes of the second half. Otherwise, the teams played to win and sometimes, unfortunately, that kept kids on the bench. I would tell you that my experience is there is no socialism going on and there are alot of girls who may only get 0-15 minutes/game. It is tough on them, but they grit it out and sometimes are rewarded when a kid goes down or isn't up to snuf. I'm not sure the relegation issue is relevant to youth soccer. Further, if you watch the Premiership, I think at least 80% of the league has stayed up for as long as I can remember. Sure, the Norwichs, Aston Villas, etc bounce up and down--but I think that is routinely the same names too. I know others make a big deal out of this too. It certainly is an incentive/disincentive for the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns of English football, but I think the "relegation is a game changer" argument is a non sequitur for making better soccer players who can always jump to the next team. |
|
|
|
Post by atv on Jan 29, 2020 17:49:00 GMT -5
I can tell you that has not been our experience in several years of ECNL play. Players are generally playing at least half the game. Also, while I’m not supporting the previous poster’s comments, I do see where this hurts competition. Especially if one team is substituting more liberally than another this can be a competitive disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 29, 2020 18:34:05 GMT -5
So basically, if you have a really good player - don't invest the time and money until they are U15. The equal playing time at ECNL level is a complete joke. Players should only be replaced if they are fatigued or injured. And if any player has a bad attitude, they shouldn't play at all. Period. Starting players should work hard to start, and keep their spot, and they should always know that the players sitting on the bench are working fiercely to take their starting spot away. That's how competition works - with sports, jobs, and life. I find it interesting that in European soccer they relegate the worst players and teams, while in the US they are super soft on those who don't perform at their best. Not to be political - but in a way, it's like soccer socialism. The 'everyone wins' attitude is absurd, and doesn't teach players a thing, except to become complacent and think mediocracy is good enough. I think coaches who adhere to this philosophy are doing players more of disservice, rather than good, and that coaching philosophy should be relegated to rec. soccer. I'm not sure where your quote-- "equal playing time at ECNL level" comes from. I have a girl whose done ECNL, DA and then back to ECNL for CF. The philosophy of any coaches or the club/CF re playing time did not change whatsoever. Because of more lax sub rules in ECNL (like NCAA), the coaches may give a starter a breather the last 10 minutes of the first half or the first 10 minutes of the second half. Otherwise, the teams played to win and sometimes, unfortunately, that kept kids on the bench. I would tell you that my experience is there is no socialism going on and there are alot of girls who may only get 0-15 minutes/game. It is tough on them, but they grit it out and sometimes are rewarded when a kid goes down or isn't up to snuf. I'm not sure the relegation issue is relevant to youth soccer. Further, if you watch the Premiership, I think at least 80% of the league has stayed up for as long as I can remember. Sure, the Norwichs, Aston Villas, etc bounce up and down--but I think that is routinely the same names too. I know others make a big deal out of this too. It certainly is an incentive/disincentive for the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns of English football, but I think the "relegation is a game changer" argument is a non sequitur for making better soccer players who can always jump to the next team. |
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 29, 2020 18:45:48 GMT -5
Must be this is the coaches preference. His players - regardless of how well they play, or how poorly they play, are rotated out roughly every 17.5 minutes. They could be playing great, but at 17.5 minutes - subs come in. There's also no rhyme or reason for who's on the starting lineup - that's not earned either - he rotates that as well. If he starts a player for one game, he won't start them the next game. I've never experienced anything like this, and we've had kids who play multiple sports. It's also been problematic when, in the second half, if a player sustains an injury, they can't come out because all substitutions have already been made.
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jan 29, 2020 19:07:13 GMT -5
Must be this is the coaches preference. His players - regardless of how well they play, or how poorly they play, are rotated out roughly every 17.5 minutes. They could be playing great, but at 17.5 minutes - subs come in. There's also no rhyme or reason for who's on the starting lineup - that's not earned either - he rotates that as well. If he starts a player for one game, he won't start them the next game. I've never experienced anything like this, and we've had kids who play multiple sports. It's also been problematic when, in the second half, if a player sustains an injury, they can't come out because all substitutions have already been made. We are experiencing a similar thing right now. It is very frustrating. The only players who don't rotate are the ones that we are low on numbers in their position. Mainly the center backs and to a lesser extent the outside backs. I have never seen anything like this in high level sports. Even the younger age child's team doesn't do this. They get at least a half of a game for the young ones but it is not split in half and rotated evenly and starters rotated evenly. Maybe this is a new trend. I was not aware of anyone else doing this besides our coach. Obviously someone is experiencing the same and it appears to be a different coach than ours. |
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 29, 2020 19:57:44 GMT -5
Must be this is the coaches preference. His players - regardless of how well they play, or how poorly they play, are rotated out roughly every 17.5 minutes. They could be playing great, but at 17.5 minutes - subs come in. There's also no rhyme or reason for who's on the starting lineup - that's not earned either - he rotates that as well. If he starts a player for one game, he won't start them the next game. I've never experienced anything like this, and we've had kids who play multiple sports. It's also been problematic when, in the second half, if a player sustains an injury, they can't come out because all substitutions have already been made. We are experiencing a similar thing right now. It is very frustrating. The only players who don't rotate are the ones that we are low on numbers in their position. Mainly the center backs and to a lesser extent the outside backs. I have never seen anything like this in high level sports. Even the younger age child's team doesn't do this. They get at least a half of a game for the young ones but it is not split in half and rotated evenly and starters rotated evenly. Maybe this is a new trend. I was not aware of anyone else doing this besides our coach. Obviously someone is experiencing the same and it appears to be a different coach than ours. |
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 29, 2020 19:58:13 GMT -5
We are experiencing a similar thing right now. It is very frustrating. The only players who don't rotate are the ones that we are low on numbers in their position. Mainly the center backs and to a lesser extent the outside backs. I have never seen anything like this in high level sports. Even the younger age child's team doesn't do this. They get at least a half of a game for the young ones but it is not split in half and rotated evenly and starters rotated evenly. Maybe this is a new trend. I was not aware of anyone else doing this besides our coach. Obviously someone is experiencing the same and it appears to be a different coach than ours. |
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 29, 2020 19:58:37 GMT -5
We are experiencing a similar thing right now. It is very frustrating. The only players who don't rotate are the ones that we are low on numbers in their position. Mainly the center backs and to a lesser extent the outside backs. I have never seen anything like this in high level sports. Even the younger age child's team doesn't do this. They get at least a half of a game for the young ones but it is not split in half and rotated evenly and starters rotated evenly. Maybe this is a new trend. I was not aware of anyone else doing this besides our coach. Obviously someone is experiencing the same and it appears to be a different coach than ours. |
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 29, 2020 19:59:09 GMT -5
What exactly does the pay to play formula equate to for playing time? Looking at all ages U14 and below since they have unlimited substitutions allowed. Should parents expect all players to play at least half a game? or Should parents expect that each player will play exactly the same amount of minutes per game? Looking at U15 and above with only limited substitutions allowed what does pay to play look like? Not talking about what coaches really do LOL What I am asking is in this pay to play environment where parents have rights and expectations that THEY PAY so THEIR KID PLAYS ... what do you think everyone plays at least half or everyone plays an equal amount? And how would you handle player rotations and substitutions ... almost like hockey lines coming in and out? |
|
|
|
Post by jkdub1 on Jan 29, 2020 20:51:49 GMT -5
Must be this is the coaches preference. His players - regardless of how well they play, or how poorly they play, are rotated out roughly every 17.5 minutes. They could be playing great, but at 17.5 minutes - subs come in. There's also no rhyme or reason for who's on the starting lineup - that's not earned either - he rotates that as well. If he starts a player for one game, he won't start them the next game. I've never experienced anything like this, and we've had kids who play multiple sports. It's also been problematic when, in the second half, if a player sustains an injury, they can't come out because all substitutions have already been made. We are experiencing a similar thing right now. It is very frustrating. The only players who don't rotate are the ones that we are low on numbers in their position. Mainly the center backs and to a lesser extent the outside backs. I have never seen anything like this in high level sports. Even the younger age child's team doesn't do this. They get at least a half of a game for the young ones but it is not split in half and rotated evenly and starters rotated evenly. Maybe this is a new trend. I was not aware of anyone else doing this besides our coach. Obviously someone is experiencing the same and it appears to be a different coach than ours. We've got the same thing happening with an 04B team in our area. Never seen anything like it! One game, a couple of fathers yelled across the field at half time for the boys to pack their bags and they left purely from frustration due to this. I believe they lost 4-5 very good starting players at that time and I anticipate there will be more players that don't sign back on next year. If that happens, that team will be decimated as we don't have the quantity of quality players to replace them that places like Atlanta do. Coach is younger guy with NSCAA Advanced National and has coached club and college soccer for over 10 years for what that's worth. |
|
|
|
Post by atv on Jan 29, 2020 21:01:10 GMT -5
We had the same thing happening just this year with one of our teams. Surprising and very, very disappointing. If this is a new trend it may be partly due to coaches and/ or clubs response to parent feedback on playing time. Trying to keep their biggest stakeholders happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccermaxx72 on Jan 29, 2020 21:15:12 GMT -5
Should never happen after u12 academy.
|
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 30, 2020 6:54:23 GMT -5
atv and soccermaxx72 - Agree with both of you. It's super disappointing, and shouldn't happen after U12. Sadly there are only a few ECNL options in the Atlanta area - and most families choose for location/convenience. At that point, you can only hope that the coach doesn't have a 'recreational' mindset. Especially when you're spending $10k+ on his/her coaching, tourney fees, uniforms, travel expenses, meals, etc. – to be on an 'elite' team.
|
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 30, 2020 6:57:50 GMT -5
We had the same thing happening just this year with one of our teams. Surprising and very, very disappointing. If this is a new trend it may be partly due to coaches and/ or clubs response to parent feedback on playing time. Trying to keep their biggest stakeholders happy. |
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jan 30, 2020 7:26:22 GMT -5
oraclesfriend - I hope this isn't a new trend. Maybe we have the same coach... :/ Nope. You have said enough for me to know it isn't the same coach. So my guess is that there are at least 3 coaches at high level doing this because of the mentioned 04 Boys coach doing it as well. I agree this should not happen after academy ages. At U13 and U14 there are still rules (from Georgia Soccer) in place that say at least half a game. This doesn't apply to US Club teams as far as I know. But half of a game doesn't mean you have to rotate the starters too. It doesn't mean that you can't leave in the better players longer and half them move sides or something. Once they are this old it starts to become an issue for the players, not just the parents. As I have heard several of our players say things like "it doesn't matter how well or not well I play, the starting line up is picked out of a hat." Many of the kids are confused about how they are playing. Have a great game, but start the next on the bench. Have a poor game, but start the next one anyway. Either way there is the same playing time. No positive or negative reinforcement. Some players have no idea if they are doing what the coach wants or not. |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 30, 2020 8:20:37 GMT -5
Sounds like you folks want a simple solution...11 player rosters.
If they make the team they should play...or simply dont take them, to hell with injury consequences. This isn't high school or pro soccer. The focus of club soccer should be DEVELOPMENT FFS.
So was the more subs a competitive advantage or disadvantage? If it's a disadvantage, sounds like theres some players your team should cut.
Perhaps parents should pay per minutes played if you want it that way. Starters pay $3 grand and subs pay $1 grand, sound good?
Perhaps when the teams are selected they can guarantee a starting spot or sub spot and you pay accordingly. Or you can say nah, I want my kid to start, we will go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by hateallthesechanges on Jan 30, 2020 8:36:05 GMT -5
I don't think this is so cut and dry. It depends on the team's depth. My daughter plays on a higher ranked ECNL team. Starters are usually starters. They usually get more time than the subs but the subs still get their fair share of time. It is not even steven and it does depend on what is happening in that particular game. There are times he keeps the starters in longer to win and there are times it isn't necessary and that gives the subs a good chance to prove themselves. It usually works out. We have depth though. There really is not much, if any, fall off when the subs come on. In any given game, they might be better than the starter at their position. I would hate to be paying the fees we are paying and wonder if my kid is going to get 5 minutes or even go in the game at all. I would probably try to change clubs and find a team where they weren't bottom 5 if this was the case. But what if they are always going to be bottom 5 on a top team. I wouldn't recommend them go to a lower team when they earned a spot on a top team and they are "almost as good" as the person ahead of them. I don't care how old or what level, I still believe kids need to, and deserve to, play in games. MAYBE at AU where the goal is making the first team, they can afford to not play kids. But I don't really see any other league/team/club in the state that warrants this. Coaches shouldn't select players they don't think can do the job at that level. But this is just my opinion based on the teams my kids have been a part of. As I said, I don't think there is a cut and dry answer. It depends on the team and the game. But generally, the goal should be to continue to develop ALL the players on the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 30, 2020 8:46:05 GMT -5
But generally, the goal should be to continue to develop ALL the players on the team. You really wouldn't think that reading this thread. Agreed, AU shouldn't sub like this, after all, it's not pay to play. It's recruit and sign, cut and replace. Churn the kids through the machine. But I think generally top teams should only carry 13 players and pull up 2-3 from 2nd teams for subs who you can play 5 minutes or sit the whole game. At least that way no one is paying to ride the pine, it's an opportunity for lower level players. But if you're not happy about playing time, GTFO and find a club you feel valued your child and money. Also sounds like the issue is with coaches who take too many kids who can't cut it just to pad the coffers. If the players aren't 1A and 1B, just don't take them. |
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jan 30, 2020 8:57:21 GMT -5
I don't think this is so cut and dry. It depends on the team's depth. My daughter plays on a higher ranked ECNL team. Starters are usually starters. They usually get more time than the subs but the subs still get their fair share of time. It is not even steven and it does depend on what is happening in that particular game. There are times he keeps the starters in longer to win and there are times it isn't necessary and that gives the subs a good chance to prove themselves. It usually works out. We have depth though. There really is not much, if any, fall off when the subs come on. In any given game, they might be better than the starter at their position. I would hate to be paying the fees we are paying and wonder if my kid is going to get 5 minutes or even go in the game at all. I would probably try to change clubs and find a team where they weren't bottom 5 if this was the case. But what if they are always going to be bottom 5 on a top team. I wouldn't recommend them go to a lower team when they earned a spot on a top team and they are "almost as good" as the person ahead of them. I don't care how old or what level, I still believe kids need to, and deserve to, play in games. MAYBE at AU where the goal is making the first team, they can afford to not play kids. But I don't really see any other league/team/club in the state that warrants this. Coaches shouldn't select players they don't think can do the job at that level. But this is just my opinion based on the teams my kids have been a part of. As I said, I don't think there is a cut and dry answer. It depends on the team and the game. But generally, the goal should be to continue to develop ALL the players on the team. I agree with you with pretty much everything. I don't think players should sit on the bench for the whole game either. Developing players requires that they get playing time. However, I do think playing time and starting need to be based on something. If someone is dominating and playing hard then don't pull them out when they are in the zone. It doesn't have to be exactly even every game. Also if you played out of your mind and worked your tail off then you should start the next game and play a few extra minutes. If you played like crap then you don't start and spend a little longer on the bench. In an 80 minute game if you play 30-35 minutes it isn't going to hurt you a ton compared to your teammate playing 45-50 minutes. If it happens all of the time, then maybe...but rewarding players for good effort and good playing with starting and increased playing time is appropriate IMHO. If you get the same playing time no matter what you do on the field I think that is not right. |
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jan 30, 2020 9:02:42 GMT -5
But generally, the goal should be to continue to develop ALL the players on the team. You really wouldn't think that reading this thread. Agreed, AU shouldn't sub like this, after all, it's not pay to play. It's recruit and sign, cut and replace. Churn the kids through the machine. But I think generally top teams should only carry 13 players and pull up 2-3 from 2nd teams for subs who you can play 5 minutes or sit the whole game. At least that way no one is paying to ride the pine, it's an opportunity for lower level players. But if you're not happy about playing time, GTFO and find a club you feel valued your child and money. Also sounds like the issue is with coaches who take too many kids who can't cut it just to pad the coffers. If the players aren't 1A and 1B, just don't take them. This is part of the issue. Taking large rosters but also taking too many players that play a certain position. Why take 7 midfielders if you play a 4 3 3? If you do then give players time at different positions. That is development. Play people out of position so they can learn a new position. I think we need smaller rosters and more playing up too, but I wouldn't suggest that they come in for only 5 minutes or sit. That isn't fair either, but 10 minutes per half initially to get them used to the speed of play. However they have to train with the team some too...at least one time per week. Makes sense to have 15 full timers and 3-4 training/subs. That way if injury or illness or other issues come up then they play. |
|
|
|
Post by atv on Jan 30, 2020 9:15:57 GMT -5
Root cause is the large rosters and then coaches trying to make everyone happy. Only take 13 kids that can play and bring up top performers from the second team as needed. This incentivizes players to make the first team while still getting meaningful minutes at the appropriate level while also motivating the top 13 to keep their spot. Taking 18 players when there is a clear drop off at the bottom of the lineup is not fair to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jan 30, 2020 9:17:22 GMT -5
I could probably write a novel about playing time and communication between players and coaches during the week....
As long as there was an open line of communication for players 1-18, then a coach always as free will. Seen it too much and too often, where a kid makes a roster of 18 and never has dialogue with a coach and rides the bench all year with never any discussions or evaluations.
I've also seen kids that work their tail off and deserve to make a game day roster and play, and don't even sniff the field again, zero communication.
I"ve also seen kids play minutes at high levels on high teams that shouldn't be taken minutes from other players.
My take is -- if you are going to carry 18 players, you better have an open communication with all 18 players about playing time and earning time. DA rules suffocate development with their sub restrictions. The top top top players are being pushed out of DA and signing deals with USL teams or becoming homegrowns, there not even playing as many DA games anymore -- yet the entire system is catered towards them.
The system needs to be catered to the middle players, the player who is smart player, yet might be lacking in another area of development, needs to mature and grow, allow time grow into his or her body, the top players will always find their path. The middle unknown player is the players we are missing out on, and often the players that are difference makers in sports. The late bloomer. If they NBA started offering 14 and 15 year old deals, the league would become an embarrassment, imagine a 15 year old trying to play with grown men nightly, they would be embarrassed and ruined. Lebron would destroy a 15 year old.
What is so wrong with substituting a player for 5 minutes and then getting him back there, there are so many long stoppages in soccer these days withe balls traveling distances when it goes out of bounds, stoppages for injuries, stoppages for fouls. set rules and restrictions about doing subs quickly and it should go unnoticed. Soccer historically back in the old days when pele played had no subs, I think first implemented in the 1970 world cup. not sure about club ball. Soccer in my opinion needs to add a sub at the pro level, this would trickle down to the youth level and teach the importance of substitutions and value of a team sport.
It's easy to coach your top 11 players, question is can you coach all 18 and make your 18th player the best player on your roster. Every player should be treated equally and have an equally opportunity for success. The kids play so many meaningless soccer games throughout their careers -- I always encouraging the winning mindset, its about competition, you step between the lines, you have to have the killer mentality and killer instinct -- whether its chess, checkers, hooops or soccer, you play to win the damn game. fight do what it takes, grind, ping it, bang it, save it, pass it, make it pretty and sometimes it has to be UGLY, but that's soccer.
Either way--- play your kids and if not communicate with them often on why they aren't playing.
Coaching and teachers are the most influential people in children's lives (besides parents) -- I remember every coach and teacher I've ever had (interestingly, i don't recall all my professors in college though) -- but I remember every coach from every sport. Their impact on our lives is enormous. Teach us out to play with passion and teach us the importance of playing a team sport. 5-18 different individuals from different backgrounds, difference SES, different ethnicity, but we all come together for one common goal of dominating the opponent when we stop on the pitch or the court. Sport changes peoples lives. Coaches change peoples lives, do it for the better and make every kid better on and off the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jan 30, 2020 10:51:42 GMT -5
Communication is the key to development. The game may be the best teacher but not without feedback when you are a kid. Sometimes you are doing the right thing but it doesn't work out. Sometimes you are doing the wrong thing but it still works out ok. Soccer has tons of luck play into the game. The game can't be the best teacher if you only allow results to teach. The coach is a TEACHER. TEACH the game.
Playing time is key, but I think carrying huge rosters is definitely a problem. I don't advocate only 13 (due to the high rate of illness and injury) but 15 is plenty and definitely have the next lower team train up regularly. Once a week at the minimum. You never know who will step up!
@soccerhouse I love the comment about trying to help the middle players. I totally agree! For both genders and kids trying to go pro or for college the players need a system that helps them grow. I am not an advocate for equal playing time at the older ages but I do think all players need to have meaningful minutes.
|
|
