- Top A players *should* standout from the bottom half of the A team and the entire B team
- Mid-bottom of A team is more prone to coach biases.
- On any given day/game some of the mid-bottom A team players could be switched up with any of the top B team players.
- Sometimes A players are on the team due to parent influence, sibling influence, size influence, or from another standpoint... are known to be motivators, work hard, etc.
- Sometimes B team players could be on A team but they are known whatever as less desirable for whatever reason (miss practices, don't give it their all, negativity, other sports).
- Position comes into play too... A possible A team player may not have the skills it would take to be solid a solid defensive player (i.e. striker only type player). Team may already have 2 players that are better than that player at that particular position. B team may be a better fit so the player can actually getting playing time (instead of off the bench).

Those are a few thoughts from the top of my head.

Ass kissing parents in 95% of the cases. The other 5% is athletecism or early bloomers.

In the running for dumbest thread ever.

Why are they always 2-3 kids better than the rest on your local town soccer and baseball teams? Some kids are just better.

While the thread may be repetitive and certainly some of the factors involved are obvious (i.e. "some kids are just better"). There are other factors that make the thread somewhat interesting to me. In fact, more interesting than the typical "Revs suck", "GPS sucks", "Valeo sucks" threads). Therefore, your comment is in the running for the dumbest comment ever.

Speed and quickness.

Hilarious. Why do 3-4 kids in your kid's AP calculus or history class get As while the rest don't? What's the difference between B team players and D team players?

One thing I have noticed after 5 years in the same club watching many of the same kids practice and play is that the best aged 9 are still the best aged 14. True for middle and bottom too with a very few exceptions. Good coaching has improved everyone, ,but innate qualities are by far the most important.

I am a coach who has worked at all levels, including elite teams back in the day when elite meant elite. I have two teams now, a and b, just 1 year of age difference. U13 and 14. I often train the two squads together. They have all been trained in a similar fashion.
The single biggest difference is athleticism, pure and simple, especially in a soccer sense.
All of the players on my A team have far better mastery of the ball. They are more composed, less prone to bad first touch and are able to play under pressure.
Many players on both squads have good vision, speed, and understand space and tactical decisions. The B team lack the quality of the first teamers-not good or bad, just reality. The B struggles more with proper pass weight, first touch can be far too loose, and sometimes, they just don't seem to work as hard, especially with defensive responsibilities.

As for some previous posts, the BS thrown around about relationship with the coach, who has the hotter moms, who pays the bills and all that drivel is crap. It appears to be a defense mechanism for some who can't or won't accept the fact that their child is not as athletic as others. It is a distraction, especially if shared with their player. ALL of my parents are comfortable with the level of play for their child and the teams often spend time together. It is not due to me, I am just fortunate.

As this is t/s, I can already hear the keyboards being whacked with opposing points of view-have at it. But paragraph b is more important than paragraph a...

Good point, but overlooked by most.

A/B can work if the club and coach handle the situation in an open, fair and clearly communicated manner to all involved. However, few clubs do this well - they don't communicate, decision making isn't readily apparent to those involved, parents interfere, politics etc.

My D is one of the top 3 on the B team, and has played with the A team when short handed. The biggest difference is the athleticism of the players. The A team players tend to be bigger, stronger, and better on the ball than the B team players. My daughter could play on the A team, however, she wouldn't get the amount of play team she gets on the B team, she would be middle/lower end of the roster. She was a bubble player during tryouts and I told her coach I would rather have her play on the B team and be an impact player, than sit on the bench of the A team. That being said, I've seen other parents really push to have their kids move up and then end up leaving the club when their kid doesn't get play time. Honestly, there is very little difference between middle/low end of the roster and top players on the B team.

When my daughter played between the two, the biggest difference was very slight. B Teamer (her included) would be happy to complete a pass toward their teammate....even better when it went to a teammate.

A Teamer passes it to their feet, to the correct side of the body, and leading them in the right direction. They expect the same in return.

Bottom three A team players could be switched with top 3 B team players, very little difference in this group. Top A player vs. mid A player is altogether different. Better touch, more athletic (but not necessarily bigger), better "feel" for game. Many of the intangible qualities that the top A players have include how they see the field, angles they take, tackles they win or choose not to make. This might also include the passion to play and work at the game outside of team practices.

I think a committed B player can work into contributing on an A team, I don't think a mid A player can become top A player through work alone. Top A players have that "thing" you can't coach up.

What decision making is not readily apparent?
Is it because your child, just for example, did not make the A team and you can't figure out why?
I feel that if parents from b teams watch A teams train or play, how can they not see the difference.
That is always readily apparent.