|
|
Post by soccernoleuk on Jan 30, 2020 11:04:32 GMT -5
A lot of pieces to the puzzle here and a lot of good points.
Personally I am in favor of limiting roster sizes. As mentioned already, have a regular roster of about 13 and pull up 2-3 players each game. If they get game time then great, it will benefit them as well as help build depth for the team/club at the respective age level. If they don’t get playing time that is fine also because they still have their own team to go back to and play to help their development. It becomes a little tricky when players are pulled up though for a travel game. I can’t imagine anyone from the ATL area being happy about being pulled up to an ECNL team to travel to Florida, then sitting the bench most of the time there.
As for playing time, I am all for everyone playing when rostered for their team. However, the amount of time needs to be earned. If the player is missing practices and/or games, their playing time needs to be limited some. It shouldn’t matter if the best player on the team misses a practice or two, they should suffer lower minutes the next game. On the other hand, if the bottom player is at all practices and is working hard, they should earn more playing time.
I also agree communication is key. Coaches should properly communicate BEFORE a player signs about his/her philosophies regarding playing time. This way if a player or parent don’t agree, they can choose to sign elsewhere. Additionally, whatever the coach does communicate, they need to follow through. If the coach says playing time is going to be earned, then explain how and follow what is stated. Don’t play players who don’t show up and work hard in this case. If the coach doesn’t follow through, the players should be free to leave without any hassles.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 30, 2020 11:16:09 GMT -5
I wouldn't think pulling players for travel games would be a very common thing. Carrying 14 on the road for 1-2 games at U14+ should be fine. Pro/college teams always travel with less players. At home (or local at least), if you have 14 and bring 2-3 from the 2nd team, that should suffice for 99% of the time. For ECNL, there's only 30% long-distance out of state games.
I don't think anyone would make the "equal PT for all" argument. But what subs you carry should basically get a half a game (they can sub out 2 different starters during the game, meaning those starters get 3/4 of a game. Obviously for DA its different, IMO older DA rosters should carry fewer players due to stringent sub rules (and the fact they're not getting paid for being on the bench like AU academy or the pros/college). If you can only make 3 subs in a game, there's no point in having more than 4-5 on the bench...
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jan 30, 2020 12:07:02 GMT -5
I'll caveat my thoughts as well with "playing time should never be given, it needs to be earned and when it's not given, we must communicate on why"
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on Jan 30, 2020 15:21:42 GMT -5
Some of the subbing nonsense is the restrictions on when a team can sub. Some competitions limit to stoppage on teams own possession, others allow at any stoppage. When I ref, unless the coaches vehemently disagree, I allow both teams to sub at any stoppage (if there are players ready to enter). No reason to stop for a blue throw / sub, let the red player stand there for another 5 minutes, and stop the game again on a red throw. If the players are up, they're in the game if I'm in the center. Most coaches get it and appreciate it.
I developed this mentality as a parent watching my kids stand up and wait for a sub for 5 or 10 minutes until the 'right' stoppage. Idiotic and not common sense. End of rant - let them play!
|
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Jan 30, 2020 16:50:39 GMT -5
Some of the subbing nonsense is the restrictions on when a team can sub. Some competitions limit to stoppage on teams own possession, others allow at any stoppage. When I ref, unless the coaches vehemently disagree, I allow both teams to sub at any stoppage (if there are players ready to enter). No reason to stop for a blue throw / sub, let the red player stand there for another 5 minutes, and stop the game again on a red throw. If the players are up, they're in the game if I'm in the center. Most coaches get it and appreciate it. I developed this mentality as a parent watching my kids stand up and wait for a sub for 5 or 10 minutes until the 'right' stoppage. Idiotic and not common sense. End of rant - let them play! and the alphabet league sub rules are ridiculous... more restrictive than college! |
|
|
|
Post by hattrick07 on Jan 30, 2020 17:29:55 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 hattrick07 on Jan 30, 2020 17:31:12 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 hattrick07 on Jan 30, 2020 17:59:29 GMT -5
atlfutboldad There are gray areas - not just black and white. In this case, there are too many players, who are not playing at the same level - in fact, it's a sharp drop in talent. Some players shouldn't have made the team based on skill, and some shouldn't have made it because of attitude (not showing up for practice, disrespectful to coach, other players, etc.) To make this situation worse, some coaches don't have the spine to have difficult conversations with players or parents. So that being said, why should players with a bad attitude or who don't show up for practice, or who aren't putting in 100% - get equal playing time? Do you think that's right when everyone is forking out 12k+? You think subbing out every 17.5 minutes works in this instance? I mean, that's great for the kids I'm referring too, and a slap in the face to the other kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 30, 2020 18:19:47 GMT -5
Again, not equal PT, but half a game (minus extenuating circumstances). Not showing up for practices and bad attitudes are different circumstances, which are situations for the coach to manage. But all the players who put in the work and pay the same $$$ should get a half-game of PT. And practices will be missed, so long as its not too many/a distraction, it happens.
But subs don't need to sub for the same player (unless you have too many subs...). Assuming your team carries 16 into a game, those 5 subs can sub for a different player each half, balancing things so that a few players will get 100% PT, some will get 75%, and some will get 50% (usually the subs).
|
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Jan 30, 2020 20:55:02 GMT -5
Some of the subbing nonsense is the restrictions on when a team can sub. Some competitions limit to stoppage on teams own possession, others allow at any stoppage. When I ref, unless the coaches vehemently disagree, I allow both teams to sub at any stoppage (if there are players ready to enter). No reason to stop for a blue throw / sub, let the red player stand there for another 5 minutes, and stop the game again on a red throw. If the players are up, they're in the game if I'm in the center. Most coaches get it and appreciate it. I developed this mentality as a parent watching my kids stand up and wait for a sub for 5 or 10 minutes until the 'right' stoppage. Idiotic and not common sense. End of rant - let them play! This is how they changed subbing for U12 and down two years ago and when the Ref actually knows the rule it’s great. (Typically older Refs don’t know the new rule). Just another thing for U15 and down to have, that and playing 9v9. |
|
|
|
Post by jash on Jan 30, 2020 23:29:34 GMT -5
I guess I'm missing where the whole point of youth soccer is to win. In almost all situations we should be aiming to develop players not win, right? I feel like most of the time people get mad that our youth system is not developing these amazing players for our national team (and other things) and then in the next post they complain that the best players aren't getting enough starts and the weaker players are getting too much playing time.
Seriously?
Rethink why we're doing this, and remember that some of those weaker players can become stronger players (sometimes even become the strongest players) if you give them a chance.
It's youth sports -- every kid should play a reasonable amount of time. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccernoleuk on Jan 31, 2020 7:30:56 GMT -5
It's youth sports -- every kid should play a reasonable amount of time. Period. I have no issue with this if the player works hard & shows commitment. If they are missing practices and even games from time to time, they should not get a lot of playing time at the expense of those players that show up all the time & work hard. Just because their parents pay the same amount doesn't mean they should be GIVEN anything. I have stated above that if the worst player on the team is committed & works hard they should play. If the best player isn't committed and doesn't always show up, they should get more bench time. I have yet to have my child on a team where everyone is fully committed. Just this week we had 2 players miss 2 of 3 practices, and a third player missed 1 practice session. We still have a couple weeks until our first game, so I suppose it isn't a huge deal. However, based on what happened in the fall, if we did have a game this weekend at least one of those players would start and play most of the game. To me that is a slap in the face to the other 11-12 players that showed up all week and worked hard. |
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad65 on Jan 31, 2020 8:52:15 GMT -5
I guess I'm missing where the whole point of youth soccer is to win. In almost all situations we should be aiming to develop players not win, right? I feel like most of the time people get mad that our youth system is not developing these amazing players for our national team (and other things) and then in the next post they complain that the best players aren't getting enough starts and the weaker players are getting too much playing time. Seriously? Rethink why we're doing this, and remember that some of those weaker players can become stronger players (sometimes even become the strongest players) if you give them a chance. It's youth sports -- every kid should play a reasonable amount of time. Period. This!!!!! We are so obsessed with winning and not developing. I feel we are missing a lot of opportunities to develop the bottom and middle players. On my sons team we have some very talented skill players but a few of them have no real passion for the game. I have even heard a few of them mention they were happy when the season was over. In my humble opinion these are teh players that will burn out and quit or learn to hate the game. Now, some of the less skilled players get less playing time because it's all about the win. Many of those less skilled players are the ones with an amazing passion for the game, are always first on the field and last off the field during practice, spend extra time on off days, and really try to improve. Again my opinion, but should we not be trying to make those kids top level players? It's not always about the technical skill you possess right now, but the potential to be great. |
|
|
|
Post by atv on Jan 31, 2020 9:35:40 GMT -5
Here’s where I’m at:
Hypothetical scenario (probably never happens). A high level team at a big club has rostered 18 players on their top team for the year. Big club has 4 to 7 teams per age group. The said team may have 1 to 2 kids that are clearly struggling. The typical game is much faster than their speed of play. The level of play is not improving as the season progresses and the player(s) essentially become field liabilities. Their teammates (peer group) are becoming increasingly frustrated with them in games. The struggling player’s confidence goes way, way down.
I would argue in this type of scenario, the player’s development is better served by restricting their playing time on the top team and having an “option” where game minutes are with a lower team where the level of play is more appropriate to their current skill level. Maybe even moving the player permanently down or biobanding until the level of play improves.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 31, 2020 10:13:16 GMT -5
Here’s where I’m at: Hypothetical scenario (probably never happens). A high level team at a big club has rostered 18 players on their top team for the year. Big club has 4 to 7 teams per age group. The said team may have 1 to 2 kids that are clearly struggling. The typical game is much faster than their speed of play. The level of play is not improving as the season progresses and the player(s) essentially become field liabilities. Their teammates (peer group) are becoming increasingly frustrated with them in games. The struggling player’s confidence goes way, way down. I would argue in this type of scenario, the player’s development is better served by restricting their playing time on the top team and having an “option” where game minutes are with a lower team where the level of play is more appropriate to their current skill level. Maybe even moving the player permanently down or biobanding until the level of play improves. I agree, but therein lies the problem. I don't think the clubs can demote players to a lower team during the season. That would likely cause the family to blow up and hurt the confidence of the player a lot (many have issues when they don't make the same team the next tryouts). Not saying its a bad thing though, likely a good thing. But perhaps we're forming our teams incorrectly and should take more of an AU/AU2 approach from the top team down. soccernoleuk and hattrick07 have similar issues it seems. Our team often has 2-4 players miss practices, its almost more rare to have all 15 healthy and at practice. Its rare that non-injured players miss games, usually due to a valid reason (practicing for national competition in another activity, conflict due to an event at church or the like). But I also expect our team will replace a good 5-7 players in June if better players try out. But if these are top teams, perhaps the families didn't understand the amount of commitment involved and the coach should have a discussion with them.
The only club where this isn't acceptable (missing games and practices) should be AU, where tuition is paid and soccer is your life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jan 31, 2020 10:30:47 GMT -5
It has gotten even more convoluted now since pay to play is involved. do you drop a kid and refund them? move a kid up and charge them more? bottom line -- if you have no intentions of playing a kid on saturday, don't put him/her on the team. Have them train with you during the week, but play elsewhere. atlfutboldad - clarify what you mean by isn't acceptable at AU? missing sessions or not playing kids? --On another note: AU has said more than any other club, we don't care about results. Kids at AU should play also - just because they foot the bill doesn't mean kids don't have to play. Their issue is they aren't a club with 10 youth teams in an age group to pull from, so they want bodies, bodies for training, bodies for emergency purposes, they can't just use a DP or transitional player from top ecnl team. They don't have that luxury. They pull kids from younger teams to help out etc. Soccer is tough, you need bodies to run a good training session, we do so much 9v9 and 8v8 during sessions - having bodies during the week is a good thing -- not so much on the weekend, when you don't sub. summary - regardless of who is footing the bill, kids should play. I have a kid on a team, of 4 sessions a week, we usually have everyone there 3 of the 4 nights, and one night might be missing 1 kid. If a kid misses a few sessions all season they shouldn't be penalized for it, the habitual missers (is that a word) need a stern talking to as those players often need a talking to, but also I've seen many kids miss sessions, because they flat out can't get to training -- no ride etc. It's not their fault. |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 31, 2020 10:36:56 GMT -5
By AU I simply meant the level of commitment from the families should be understood to be higher than the rest of us. No missing games for basketball games or school chorus or anything. Also, AU should probably care less about winning than other clubs, because they don't have to care about defection to other clubs. So most of the players should play as much as possibly at U12 and then at the maximum of DA rules above that.
edit: AU is in the business of making soccer players. The rest of us want our kids to go as far with soccer as they can, but we're concerned with them being well-rounded and challenging themselves. This year I made my kid be in a school club and that will up to 2 clubs next year, as well as club soccer, school volleyball and school soccer (up to her) and most likely ODP again. Even though she can't make most weekend activities for the social clubs. But we're not doing SCCL summer league.  |
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jan 31, 2020 10:45:38 GMT -5
I guess I'm missing where the whole point of youth soccer is to win. In almost all situations we should be aiming to develop players not win, right? I feel like most of the time people get mad that our youth system is not developing these amazing players for our national team (and other things) and then in the next post they complain that the best players aren't getting enough starts and the weaker players are getting too much playing time. Seriously? Rethink why we're doing this, and remember that some of those weaker players can become stronger players (sometimes even become the strongest players) if you give them a chance. It's youth sports -- every kid should play a reasonable amount of time. Period. You have a good point and I agree with what you are saying to a point. Define reasonable amount of playing time. Half the game as a high school age player? 40%? 20-30 minutes? (Begin rant) I think it boils down to too large rosters. Also let people learn and play different positions. Don't always play people in the same positions. Teach these kids to play multiple positions...all of the players (except possibly goalkeeper). If it is truly about development you are doing them a disservice to put them in the same position the moment they start 11v11. I think most coaches are doing what they think is right. They are trying to balance playing time, starts and results. As much as everyone says they want it to be about development (and I agree) it is hard to watch your team (whether you are the coach, the player, or the parent) lose frequently. As an example my older kid was on a middle team at a big club in the older academy ages. It was right after the age group change so many (like her) skipped an age group. The team was entirely new. Many kids moved to the big club that year. We played small clubs' top teams and big clubs' middle teams that fall and got beat down a lot. We also had a horrible keeper that accounted for well more than half of the goals let in, but I digress. The coach had to go to the scheduler and tell him to fix the schedule for the spring so we were playing more appropriate teams because the girls were getting frustrated and depressed by the constant beat downs. Constantly losing by a lot without being able to even possess the ball for a few minutes was disheartening to these kids. You have to balance playing time, starts and results. If you continue to lose games with the weaker players in at that moment the players will sometimes blame their teammates and create issues. I also agree that the commitment needs to be there from the kids. If they are missing practices a lot then playing time needs to be affected. I would argue that even behavioral issues (like disrespectful behavior towards teammates and coaches) needs to be disciplined as well. Mainly we need to balance earning playing time with effort and good treatment of teammates with ensuring development. I think half game guarantees is a mistake and won't develop players. They need to know that hard work is NECESSARY to earn time. Otherwise it is no different than participation ribbons. The problem is that the coaches have a hard time balancing the half game guarantees with the discipline necessary to make great players. Giving more people a chance is great, but they are squandering it by not learning the most important lesson which is to WORK HARD. (Rant over) Balancing everything is key. Win/loss record, starts, playing time, attitude, team chemistry, development, work ethic. Only GREAT coaches can manage all of that. There are not enough great coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jan 31, 2020 10:53:48 GMT -5
agree -- its not all about winning, but it's about competing and competing appropriately. We have a reasonable decent system for placing kids appropriately for levels of competition. Yes, we have huge flaws in our system, but ignore them now -- we have a teams play a teams, b teams play b teams etc. when a younger side is killing teams, they start playing B teams from the teams above.
You can't throw a C level player on a DA team for exmaple, yes there are some C level players that can play, but I'm saying taking your average C level player, a true C level player they will get ran over on the DA level. It will not do anyone any good. That C level player can eventually become an A level player with time an maturity, so don't discard him/her and forget about them, but don't force the issue. Many parents struggle and can't see reality without the parent goggles on.
Educate and Communicate and then educate and communicate again.
u8-u12 academy ball used to be great, maybe it still it is -- kids had fun, played a ton of games. yes, we pay way to much money and played in I think 8 tournaments a year, but the kids loved and at that age can play even more. My experience kids moved around a lot, up and down rosters, its the u13+ where it started to get nuts. Players not being given opportunities and coaches obsessed with winning, so they abandoned their style of play for results -- team was built for the coaches original style of play, now he sells out and just cares about results and wants kids to just bang it for example and win at all costs. what happens -- teams fails, coach gets pissed and starts only playing top 11 players....
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 31, 2020 11:01:31 GMT -5
I think the assumption with regard to PT is that the kids are attending practices, putting in the work and trying their hardest. That should be enough to get them nearly 50% of a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 31, 2020 11:09:04 GMT -5
That C level player can eventually become an A level player with time an maturity, so don't discard him/her and forget about them, but don't force the issue. I think the problem here is that C level players often get C-level training and the parents see this. So everyone panics if their kid gets moved down. C level players need to be challenged within their abilities, taught the things the A level players know and the players who excel need to move up. C level coaches don't want to lose their best players though. When challenged, some will grasp and perform and move up and some may need to slip down to D level and play for enjoyment, exercise and recreation. |
|
|
|
Post by atv on Feb 1, 2020 7:41:38 GMT -5
“--On another note: AU ..... Their issue is they aren't a club with 10 youth teams in an age group to pull from, so they want bodies, bodies for training, bodies for emergency purposes, they can't just use a DP or transitional player ...”
So the young men not getting minutes at AU are basically there just to provide bodies at practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Feb 1, 2020 13:01:22 GMT -5
Right. But high-level practice they aren't paying for. There's sacrifices for joining a pro system. They're looking for 1-2 homegrown stars per age group and everyone else is there to help develop those players. At b least tuition/travel is paid for, right?
|
|
