Tracking Playing Time

I coach a town team with another parent. On game days, once we learn which players are available, we set a substitution plan. This seems to be the easiest way to give all players (U11) sufficient and almost equal playing time. It's not written in stone, and we leave the last 5 minutes of the game for those that have played the best on the day, but overall we find that by moving kids to various positions and subbing them equally we have no complaints from parents.

The only complaints we've received over the last couple years occurred when my partner was not available, and I lost track of time during a game and played a couple players less by mistake.

We also have asked the registrar for 10-12 players , rather than 15-16 rostered on many other 8 aside town teams to make it easier to get everyone on the field.

I'm interested in how other coaches sub players. Do you plan it before the game? Do you explain it to the players? How do the various Clubs and towns set the ideal number of players for a team? Do coaches go so far as to track playing time?

Thanks

FSM mentioned in another thread that professional clubs in Europe track players playing, presumably in total, games plus practices.

Do any coaches or Clubs in Massachusetts do so?

It would be interesting to see how much time some of the better players are logging between town and Club and ODP to then discern whether there is a meaningful difference in the rate of injury or mental fatigue, as many of the articles FSM link suggest occur.

I have seen parents on the sidelines with stop watches to track their kids playing time.

[MASC]

Playing time is always an issue for coaches, parents and players. I have always attempted to give fair playing time. Fair is NOT EQUAL.

There are many reasons why playing time is not necessarily equal:

* For 11v11, especially older teams, the shifts are generally 15 to 20 minutes. Substitutions can only occur at discrete times. Many times the substitutes will be waiting at mid-field for 5 or more minutes.
* Substitutions are generaly made positionally. In a 4-4-2,outside midfield players are expected to make many long runs and many times need to be relieved sooner than the interior defense or center midfield.
* Players who miss practices might get fewer shifts than those who attended all practices. There have been many times that players who considered themselves essential to the team were benched for missing practices.
* Not all players are ready to play all positions. Depending on the make-up of the team, there might not be many options for certain positions. Center defenders who can control/organize the defense are generally rare. These are players who are confident with their technical skills, have a broad view of the field and are extremely vocal.
* Coaches make mistakes. Observing play, instructing players on the bench, organizing substitutions, etc. can cause uneven substitution.

If playing time in a given game is unfair due to a number factors, it is generally addressed in the next game.

As players get older they understand the playing time situation and it is generally not as significant an issue.

As a parent, I have agonized when my children did not get to play. For a parent, the only reason to be at the game is to watch one's children play. As a coach, I could sometimes understand why my child wasn't on the field; but it never was enjoyable. It is difficult to share the other parent's joy over a victory when your child's contribution that game was to chase down stray balls.

If playing time in a given game is unfair due to a number factors, it is generally addressed in the next game.

That's what they all say, but rarely is it ever actually addressed in the next game.

I agree that fair is not equal. I don't set a rotation before the game although I will pick starters. And I do not believe in rotating players through all positions during a single game. it is simply too confusing. however, over the course of the season younger ones will rotate around.

I gather up parents and players together before the season begins and tell them all that playing time is earned and give them some ideas as to how that happens. attending practices, WORKING at practices, improving, doing what coach says, playing well, etc.. Parents are also told not to bother timing their kids because it will only frustrate them. And they are also told that it will ill prepare them for High School soccer!!!

there is a local travel coach who has the spreadsheet thing, everything laid out with an assistant assigned the stopwatch and subs scheduled at 5 minute increments at age u-13. it is a true laugh to watch the frustration build when the subs can't get in when coach wants so one group gets 8 or 9 minutes. then coach commences to do some ciphering to balance off their extra later in the game but can't get it figured out before someone gets whacked and needs out and someone has to leave early and the nice spreadsheet is trash. And during all of that, play is going on and coach should have been watching that and making adjustments.

for me, a general idea about playing time is important but the spreadsheet charting is a laugh. want equal playing time? go to ayso where you divide into quarters and sub then and that is it.
ront

[Henry S]

Tracking playing time

Over the years of coaching both in town and club (in MAPLE and MASC) I’ve tried to make sure everyone plays as evenly as possible. Everyone doesn’t necessarily play equal number of minutes primarily due to how many players I might have for each position. However, I don’t have players who are parked on the bench for long periods of time. While I don’t track playing time down to the minute I do have line ups and general sub patterns worked out before the game. My lineups are fairly flexible to account for injuries, last minute illnesses, etc. Maybe I’m wrong but my hunch is that many club coaches feel that giving equal playing time is “kumbayaâ€￾ soccer. Over the years I’ve heard stories from parents whose daughters played in other clubs but left or quit entirely due to lack of playing time. Several years ago at a Virginia Beach tournament I talked to a coach from a large Massachusetts club who proudly told me that he had 11 starters who came off the field only if they were running out of gas, made a major mistake or were injured. The others rode the pine and maybe got a few minutes a game. He told his players that if they found themselves sitting on the bench it was their signal to look for another club.

I don’t happen to agree with this approach because I feel the best way to test and strengthen players is in the heat of competition. Several years ago I read Andy Barney’s “Training Soccer Legends" in which he explains the philosophy and training methods of the Kansas City Legends Club (which he founded). Barney (USSF “Aâ€￾ license) outlines a number of things he does in training that differs from the traditional approach to coaching (no bibs, players have to take on defenders on every possession, only 1v1 and 2v2 play at the younger ages) but he also does not dole out playing time just to his better players. Chapter 48 of his book is titled “Equal Time = High Self-Concept = Maximum Potential.â€￾ He gives all players equal time. Why? Here is a lengthy quote that explains.

It takes tremendous courage to commit to an equal playing time approach in every game. Yet this is the only way to ensure that both your better and weaker players learn the right lessons for life from their youth soccer career. The weaker players learn they are valued by you and will take greater risks with the ball in the knowledge that they won’t be punished with reduced minutes. Often the weaker players on your squad, (who may have dropped out of soccer because of reduced playing time on other teams), will become your stronger players as they mature because of your fairness and support for costly creative risks while they are learning. By playing all players evenly you let everyone know that you believe in them and care only for their development, not the wins and losses for the gratification of your own ego. The stronger players, (who would get more playing time on any other team), learn the more valuable lesson that every child is part of a team and makes a solid commitment, should be given equal opportunity to learn and develop. There’s plenty of time later in life for the ‘only the strong survive’ approach. In all youth educational environments equality of educational opportunity is a child’s right. Taking away a young person’s chance to learn and grow because that player is not as effective at that development stage sends the wrong message to both the better and the weaker players. The weaker players get the message that they’re not as valuable and, because they get less than fair playing time, the negative message and reduced minutes eventually guarantee their demise. Players receiving less time cannot feel as good as those receiving more. In the meantime the stronger players learn the cynical attitude that it’s OK to cheat a teammate just as long as the team wins.

[Picking up a few paragraphs later.] I am of the opinion that all kids deserve equal playing opportunity for education. … I would encourage the readers of this book to see the unequal playing time proponents for who they are. These people are individuals who regard the win as more important than the self-concept of the bench sitter or non-starter. If we are honest with ourselves an unequal playing time policy isn’t about development of the stronger player. It is about getting the statistical win on the board at the end of the game and the coach being able to walk away and beat his chest about the win.

Barney claims that he selects the most respected parent to do the subbing and to keep track of the rotation of starters between games.

It appears his approach works. Their web site lists the accomplishments of this club, which includes 257 state, 18 regional, and 3 national ODP players, plus 24 professional players while winning 48 state championships, etc. http://www.kclegendssoccer.com/content/ ... hments.cfm

I’m not saying one way of handling playing time is “rightâ€￾ and another way is “wrong.â€￾ It comes down which business model the club wants to follow and which approach fits the players and parents plans. It seems that there are two basic approaches: 1. build teams with the focus on winning even if it means some players see limited or no playing time, or 2. focus on developing players which could mean the team loses games due to the weaker players. As long as the club and coach explains to their paying customers the ground rules for playing time, the parents shouldn’t complain if they find their child not playing as much as they’d like. It appears that there are enough clubs representing both philosophies that parents and player can find a fit to their liking.

Anyway, food for thought.

The issue of "fair" play ends up being the biggest problem for player, coach and parent. Players want to play more, whether they've earned a starting spot or not. Coaches are forced into focusing so much of their time to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and played equally, that it detracts from their time to focus on the quality of their sessions. Parents want to see their child play more, a return on their investment in this pay to play world.
All this can be resolved very easily. REDUCE THE ROSTER SIZE. Ask anyone who has coached or played anywhere outside the U.S. what the biggest difference in how soccer is done in other countries and the first thing they'll say is the size of the roster. There are so many reasons that a smaller roster size is better, I am curious what the real benefit of having 18 on team is.

As kids get older a larger roster seems necessary due to injuries, other interests and various conflicts.

At the young ages, especially with only an 8 or 10 game season, smaller rosters make sense. Better and easier all around.

Teams can combine a couple squads for practices, and separate for games if necessary.

Teams that play regional and Maple and multiple tournaments probably need close to 18.

The question of why MPS needs 22-24....that's a while 'nother thread. :shock:

If everyone shows up every game and no one gets sick or injured, 15 is a fine number to roster. but in around 14 years or so of coaching youth, I've not ever been lucky enough to have had that team. Playing 11v11 I am just fine with an 18 player roster. Since I don't select anyone who I'm not going to play, subs are not an issue on the days when all show up ready to go. And they are VERY nice to have when two are off on 'family vacation' over spring break and one twisted an ankle and another two are sick.

ront

At the older ages, throw in girls/boys, social life, other sports, homework/exams, and you need a miracle to get good practice attendance with a short roster. I guess if the starters are not threatened by bench players, they can not show up for practice at all.

Played in an adult league and the European teams subbed very little, (Subbing not "real" soccer) while the US and mixed teams subbed as was allowed and encouraged by the league rules. Invariably the European teams started strong, but then as the season wore on injuries and dis-satisfaction due to lack of playing time from those on their bench would wear these teams down. By the end of the season the no-sub teams would fade while those that provided roles, including everyone, not necessarily exactly equally, would finish strong, often winning the year end knock out tournament.

There are good competitive reasons to play everyone. If this includes tracking playing time loosely, or more officially, then so be it.

Good thread.

[FSM]

Re: Tracking playing time

Over the years of coaching both in town and club (in MAPLE and MASC) I’ve tried to make sure everyone plays as evenly as possible. Everyone doesn’t necessarily play equal number of minutes primarily due to how many players I might have for each position. However, I don’t have players who are parked on the bench for long periods of time. While I don’t track playing time down to the minute I do have line ups and general sub patterns worked out before the game. My lineups are fairly flexible to account for injuries, last minute illnesses, etc. Maybe I’m wrong but my hunch is that many club coaches feel that giving equal playing time is “kumbayaâ€￾ soccer. Over the years I’ve heard stories from parents whose daughters played in other clubs but left or quit entirely due to lack of playing time. Several years ago at a Virginia Beach tournament I talked to a coach from a large Massachusetts club who proudly told me that he had 11 starters who came off the field only if they were running out of gas, made a major mistake or were injured. The others rode the pine and maybe got a few minutes a game. He told his players that if they found themselves sitting on the bench it was their signal to look for another club.

I don’t happen to agree with this approach because I feel the best way to test and strengthen players is in the heat of competition. Several years ago I read Andy Barney’s “Training Soccer Legends" in which he explains the philosophy and training methods of the Kansas City Legends Club (which he founded). Barney (USSF “Aâ€￾ license) outlines a number of things he does in training that differs from the traditional approach to coaching (no bibs, players have to take on defenders on every possession, only 1v1 and 2v2 play at the younger ages) but he also does not dole out playing time just to his better players. Chapter 48 of his book is titled “Equal Time = High Self-Concept = Maximum Potential.â€￾ He gives all players equal time. Why? Here is a lengthy quote that explains.

It takes tremendous courage to commit to an equal playing time approach in every game. Yet this is the only way to ensure that both your better and weaker players learn the right lessons for life from their youth soccer career. The weaker players learn they are valued by you and will take greater risks with the ball in the knowledge that they won’t be punished with reduced minutes. Often the weaker players on your squad, (who may have dropped out of soccer because of reduced playing time on other teams), will become your stronger players as they mature because of your fairness and support for costly creative risks while they are learning. By playing all players evenly you let everyone know that you believe in them and care only for their development, not the wins and losses for the gratification of your own ego. The stronger players, (who would get more playing time on any other team), learn the more valuable lesson that every child is part of a team and makes a solid commitment, should be given equal opportunity to learn and develop. There’s plenty of time later in life for the ‘only the strong survive’ approach. In all youth educational environments equality of educational opportunity is a child’s right. Taking away a young person’s chance to learn and grow because that player is not as effective at that development stage sends the wrong message to both the better and the weaker players. The weaker players get the message that they’re not as valuable and, because they get less than fair playing time, the negative message and reduced minutes eventually guarantee their demise. Players receiving less time cannot feel as good as those receiving more. In the meantime the stronger players learn the cynical attitude that it’s OK to cheat a teammate just as long as the team wins.

[Picking up a few paragraphs later.] I am of the opinion that all kids deserve equal playing opportunity for education. … I would encourage the readers of this book to see the unequal playing time proponents for who they are. These people are individuals who regard the win as more important than the self-concept of the bench sitter or non-starter. If we are honest with ourselves an unequal playing time policy isn’t about development of the stronger player. It is about getting the statistical win on the board at the end of the game and the coach being able to walk away and beat his chest about the win.

Barney claims that he selects the most respected parent to do the subbing and to keep track of the rotation of starters between games.

It appears his approach works. Their web site lists the accomplishments of this club, which includes 257 state, 18 regional, and 3 national ODP players, plus 24 professional players while winning 48 state championships, etc. http://www.kclegendssoccer.com/content/ ... hments.cfm

I’m not saying one way of handling playing time is “rightâ€￾ and another way is “wrong.â€￾ It comes down which business model the club wants to follow and which approach fits the players and parents plans. It seems that there are two basic approaches: 1. build teams with the focus on winning even if it means some players see limited or no playing time, or 2. focus on developing players which could mean the team loses games due to the weaker players. As long as the club and coach explains to their paying customers the ground rules for playing time, the parents shouldn’t complain if they find their child not playing as much as they’d like. It appears that there are enough clubs representing both philosophies that parents and player can find a fit to their liking.

Anyway, food for thought.

Great post, Henry! I particularly like Andy Barney's philosophy. I've always thought the same, but never was ever able to articulate those thoughts. Now I don't have to since Barney has done it for me.

[FSM]

BTW I came across Andy Barney in another forum. Rather than post some of what he said here and distract from the original topic, I'll start another thread.

[FSM]

The issue of "fair" play ends up being the biggest problem for player, coach and parent. Players want to play more, whether they've earned a starting spot or not. Coaches are forced into focusing so much of their time to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and played equally, that it detracts from their time to focus on the quality of their sessions. Parents want to see their child play more, a return on their investment in this pay to play world.
All this can be resolved very easily. REDUCE THE ROSTER SIZE. Ask anyone who has coached or played anywhere outside the U.S. what the biggest difference in how soccer is done in other countries and the first thing they'll say is the size of the roster. There are so many reasons that a smaller roster size is better, I am curious what the real benefit of having 18 on team is.

FYI: "Effective Playing Time Relative to Game Format and Roster Size"

http://www.oysan.org/CoachingArticles/E ... erSize.doc

It's only through U12 (35 minute halves). Note the fine print below the graph:

"This table shows effective playing time relative to game format and roster size. The figures are presented as a) percentages of total playing time and b) as actual minutes played. Both figures assume equal rotation of players. At the youth level, a minimum goal of 70% playing time is recommended."