'07 High School Soccer #2

I think there are still plenty of programs that don't start until the first Monday and run a week of doubles, they probably haven't finalized yet. Teams that started out on last Thursday and used the first three sessions as straight try-outs probably do have things wrapped up for varsity. Since most teams start the game season next week (as early as Wed.) It does mean that almost no time is available to work out the kinks as a team. Especially if that team is finalized until the previous Friday or Saturday. Bottom line is that MIAA needs to allow teams to start two weeks prior to Labor Day but severely restrict the length of sessions and number of doubles. Teams would be so much better off practicing for 3 days then get a day off then three more on then another day off and then four more on. With only one day of doubles allowed in each section (total of three). This would allow 13 sessions over two weeks but there would be a more consistent rest pattern. My oldest daughter played for a coach who did what he considered a killer week of doubles. All that came out of it were injuries and soarness and at the end of the week a varsity team that spent almost no time together on the field.

I absolutely agree that teams can benefit from starting pre-season earlier. The drawback, however is the reluctance for families to give up that last summer vacation week.

Case in point...On my younger son's HS team one of the stronger sophomores showed up for the first time last night at the team scrimmage. Apparently he was away with his family vacationing in Florida the previous week. He had played baseball thoughout the summer and it was the only full week they could take their vacation before school started. Couple that with not having his blue card properly signed to begin pre-season, so he missed the first three days of training when he did finally return. His mother was beside herself when he played limited varsity minutes in the scrimmage and played the bulk of his time with the JV team. He certainly is a player that could contribute quality play to the varsity team, but the rumor is that he lost his spot because he didn't show up for the first full week of tryouts. When I spoke to this parent I had asked if she had considered not going away that week. Her response was adament that it was their family time and that was the priority. Although I feel for her, I can also understand the coach's position. This player missed the majority of the pre-season and only became eligible to play the night of the first scrimmage. Other less talented players were there from the beginning and endured some very tough sessions.

So who should be placed on varsity?

Am I understanding this correctly? The player and his family have made the decision that summer league baseball and a family vacation are more important than the high school socccer team and then player's mother is upset because her son may not be on varsity?

[MASoccer]

Am I understanding this correctly? The player and his family have made the decision that summer league baseball and a family vacation are more important than the high school socccer team and then player's mother is upset because her son may not be on varsity?

That pretty much sums it up! The sad part is that she just doesn't understand why that would be a problem (going on a vacation)...

Kids whose first sport is not soccer often expect that they can just pick it up and not be affected.

I have often heard hockey parents complain that only club players are making the higher level high school soccer teams. Yet they have a 8 month season starting in September with speed skating and ending in the beginning of April. Of course they also send their kids to hockey camp in the summer. They would laugh if anyone didn't do this and expected their kid to make the Varsity hockey team of course.

Like many they assume that athleticism is all that is required to play.

I saw the SJP and Lynnfield scrimmage. For most of the first half SJP maintained possession in the Lynnfield half and peppered the goal with shots but could not convert. Either the goalie scooped things up or the shots were high and/or wide.

Lynnfield had a couple of chances and their right forward has speed, skill and determination. I was not paying close enough attention so it may have been the other forward or the center mid, but they had a couple of nice combinations in front of the goal and it was apparent that Lynnfield can be dangerous up front.

First half score was 0-0.

I was highly distracted the second half for various reasons so this will be a little sketchy.

I do not know if the coach (Lynnfield) made adjustments or the if kids got their confidence after going toe to toe with the D1 defending champs. Unlike the first half, from the starting kick the ball was was relatively evenly distributed between the two halves. The SJP midfield was not maintaining possession in the second half and this started to open up the field for Lynnfield.

SJP managed to draw first blood about 10 minutes into the second half, I believe it was a header, not sure if it was on a set play. However, this did not break the confidence of Lynnfield and they came back and scored not very long after. And then Lynnfield scored again! (Maybe 10 min after the first.) SJP had other chances to score in the second half with some nice combinations in front of the goal but were unable to convert. This included a couple of great saves by the goalie in the closing minutes.

If you see Lynnfield this season and you think you are almost seeing double don't worry it's not your drinking the right forward has a younger brother that looks very similar same build, haircut and it appeared the same intensity.

Good luck to Lynnfield this year, I know they had a great run last year and may have one this year.

Final: Lynnfield 2, SJP 1

I heard that LS girls did well against Newton North in a scimmage yesterday (2 - 0). Anybody at the game? Good sign for L-S since they had a rough season last year and NN was top 10.

These are preseacon scrimmages, right? Is it fair to assume that the coaches are taking a good look at some of the weaker players and trying out players in different positions? Thus, how much stock can you put in the outcome?

These are preseacon scrimmages, right? Is it fair to assume that the coaches are taking a good look at some of the weaker players and trying out players in different positions? Thus, how much stock can you put in the outcome?

Would not put much stock into the outcome. I believe SJP has its final Varsity roster and the next step is figuring out where the kids make the best fit for the team. It is also the beginning of the process where the kids get used to each other. However, the difference between last years team and this years is quite noticible, complete turnover in the midfield (injury and graduation) and 3 of the players (who graduated) were also on the same club team (midfielder and 2 forwards).

How many have seen spots declined? I know of 4 offered varsity spots in our HS that were turned down by juniors. They would rather play most of a JV game than sit in a varsity. Anyone seeing this sort of thing?

Sounds like a sound and mature decision. Good for them.

Sounds like a good idea for the kids but puts the coach in a bit of a quandry. Does the coach take players of lesser ability but who are willing to sit on the bench? What if the players are freshmen or sophomores?

How many have seen spots declined? I know of 4 offered varsity spots in our HS that were turned down by juniors. They would rather play most of a JV game than sit in a varsity. Anyone seeing this sort of thing?

I have seniors (who have played 3 prior years) kept on the varsity as a courtesy. They only played at the end of one sided games.

It is possible that these juniors are taking the spot on the JV team of a sophomore or freshman will more upside potential.

If I was the varsity coach, I may not allow these juniors the option of playing JV, or make it clear to the JV coach that their playing time was to be limited.

My daughter played JV soccer as a freshman.
The coach kept two juniors, either for leadership or just because they were nice kids. I do not believe they made the varsity team their senior year. These girls played about half of each game. While it was a nice gesture, there were underclassmen that would have benefitted from more playing time. Another tough call for a coach.

I think in most schools the varsity and JV play most games at the same time, and train separately. So the varsity coach does not get much of a chance to see the JV players progress.

varsity and JV

My pet peeve about varsity and JV.

Why would you have a JV team play a different formation then the varsity?

For example, if the varsity almost always plays 4-4-2, why would you have your JV team always play a 4-3-3?

I saw my kids HS team do this and could not understand it.

edit

How many have seen spots declined? I know of 4 offered varsity spots in our HS that were turned down by juniors. They would rather play most of a JV game than sit in a varsity. Anyone seeing this sort of thing?

I have seen seniors (who have played 3 prior years) kept on the varsity as a courtesy. They only played at the end of one sided games.

I know, I should log in. :(

At the JV level, there should be less pressure to win and player development should be a primary focus. So, do most HS JV coaches play all of the players in all of the games? Is playing time roughly equal?