Playing time

[Unregistered]

Well, sometimes this actually might be the better option. If I had a choice of having my kid be the best player on a team or moving up to a higher level team (with most likely the better coach), but being at the bottom of the roster, I'd say more development is probably going to happen with the latter scenario. Yes, less playing time in games, but faster speed of play, more physicality, better soccer IQ from teammates, better coaching 3 days per week training for two seasons, plus winter training, if offered, I would think would put even a bench player ahead of the top kid on the lower level team.

So much of it depends on what your local club options are too. Not easy to make hard and fast rules. It also depends on the child's personality. Some won't do well mentally not getting much PT, others don't care.

[Unregistered]

Rotating too much does break the flow. However, a mass-sub can be worse as if you drop 5-6 new players out there, it's a totally different game.

I've always tried to do a "3 for 2" with wing-mids (who sub first), center-mids, wing-backs, and forwards (assuming a 4-4-2 alignment). Centerbacks never come out, and if I was short I'd leave wingbacks in as well. Exceptions always exist (i.e. some/many center mids can run all game)

So, for me, 4 subs is perfect.

That sounds ideal, but maybe only for a very small age window (U12-13?). At older ages, injuries and conflicts kick in in a major way. My kid's team might have 22+ on the roster, but there were many days in the last couple of years where there were 13 or 14 available. It had nothing to do with commitment; a couple of concussions and ACL injuries quickly reduced the number of available players. Kids going to a camp or a college visit also cut down the number. As kids got bigger and more physical, the injuries seemed to be more serious and last longer.