Playing time/ substitutions

[Unregistered]

Getting back to the original topic.

http://www.socceramerica.com/blogs/y..._insider/?p=92

Barcelona’s approach to youth development

"Through age 17, Barcelona fields two teams at each age group. Each player plays at least 45 percent of the games.

Hey, but what do they know at Barca about player development, right?

I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume that every player on BARCELONA's youth teams U17 and yopunger is a GREAT player and deserves 45% playing time.

It's apples and oranges to compare Barca teams with MAPLE teams.

JB

[Unregistered]

I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume that every player on BARCELONA's youth teams U17 and yopunger is a GREAT player and deserves 45% playing time.

It's apples and oranges to compare Barca teams with MAPLE teams.

JB

CUjo's soccer dictionary:
Deserves, di-zervz (fr.) 1) Mommy's a cougar 2) daddy picks up the check for beers 3) player is 5-10 and scored high on the beep test

[Unregistered]

I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume that every player on BARCELONA's youth teams U17 and yopunger is a GREAT player and deserves 45% playing time.

It's apples and oranges to compare Barca teams with MAPLE teams.

JB

You can use that excuse but is it not apple and oranges.
When you have a u-16/17 boys/girls team that plays at Region 1 league/College showcases
etc. how is that different? Check other topics and you will see many complaining about
kids at tournaments receiving 10 min of playing time.
It is exactly the same thing! Frankly ignorant and manipulative coaching is the problem.

[Unregistered]

I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume that every player on BARCELONA's youth teams U17 and yopunger is a GREAT player and deserves 45% playing time.

It's apples and oranges to compare Barca teams with MAPLE teams.

JB

Those players are playing against other players of a similar level, just as any team does if placed correctly. The only thing you may be able to argue is that there isn't as wide a variation as there is on most US youth teams, but there still exist a variation nonetheless.

The professional youth coaches coach them as the youth players they are and our amateur youth coaches coach like these kids are professionals.

" 'Physical fitness is achieved during matches and maintained during training.' If a team goes a long time without playing, but trains hard, as happens during the off season, then they have to arrange and play several 'friendly' games before the season begins to try and get 'match fit'. They are trying to get sharpness into their game and also get to grips with the system and the adaptation that I have already mentioned. This also applies to substitutes, as they never know when they may be needed. This is also appropriate for a player who after an injury is trying to win a place back in the team."
- Laureano Ruiz, former coach at the Cantera of Barcelona

This is why professional clubs like Barcelona have reserve teams. Players have to play the game to be both physically fit and mentally ready to play and their coaches manage their playing time so that they are. In the US we have amateur coaches that do not understand that fact and as a result a system that does not allow for it.

[Unregistered]

There is nothing worse than watching a good coach selfdestruct, and taking a great team down with him...oh wait being aprat of that team is def worse. Man over board...oh wait I think they are all now beginning to jump ship...here's looking forward to the 2011-2012 season.

[Unregistered]

You can use that excuse but is it not apple and oranges.
When you have a u-16/17 boys/girls team that plays at Region 1 league/College showcases
etc. how is that different? Check other topics and you will see many complaining about
kids at tournaments receiving 10 min of playing time.
It is exactly the same thing! Frankly ignorant and manipulative coaching is the problem.

Maybe they shouldn't be on the team and 10 min is a gift? It all comes down to U-16 thru U-18 no more then 16 on the roster.

[Unregistered]

Maybe they shouldn't be on the team and 10 min is a gift? It all comes down to U-16 thru U-18 no more then 16 on the roster.

Maybe you should not be coaching. Because if a player IS on the team at that age
they SHOULD play. But you have a point of taking too many players (money) and then
not using them.

[Unregistered]

I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume that every player on BARCELONA's youth teams U17 and yopunger is a GREAT player and deserves 45% playing time.

It's apples and oranges to compare Barca teams with MAPLE teams.

JB

JB's point, I thought, was obvious. Apparently, others disagree.

If, as the mantra for some goes, club soccer in the States should be all about "youth development," parents should err on the side of caution, not optimism. Advise kids who currently aren't obvious starters for elite teams to play on less competitive or smaller roster teams--so that playing time wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.

If your kid is having a positive experience on a respectable team, stand pat--unless you have very good reason to believe that the situation elsewhere would be significantly better. Simply disregard promises/suggestions about playing time off the bench--or accept the risk in pursuit of the reward you seek.

[Unregistered]

Some college coaches will go pretty deep into their bench - check out College Of St. Rose boxscores. They also happen to be ranked nationally at #1 - and IMO would beat many of the lower tier D-1 schools.

[Unregistered]

JB's point, I thought, was obvious. Apparently, others disagree.

If, as the mantra for some goes, club soccer in the States should be all about "youth development," parents should err on the side of caution, not optimism. Advise kids who currently aren't obvious starters for elite teams to play on less competitive or smaller roster teams--so that playing time wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.

If your kid is having a positive experience on a respectable team, stand pat--unless you have very good reason to believe that the situation elsewhere would be significantly better. Simply disregard promises/suggestions about playing time off the bench--or accept the risk in pursuit of the reward you seek.

Thanks.

IMO, a kid should be playing for a club team where he/she will get plenty of playing time in a league where they can be competitive in all of their games and win about 1/2 of their games. To my mind, that's a good fit. If it's a MASC team - great....MAPLE team - great... Region 1 team - great.

Put the kids in a position where they can succeed. Let them enjoy the game. Let them have success (yes, including winning games). There's far too much emphasis on driving toward that college scholarship that such a small fraction of youth players will ever get. The cream is going to rise to the top regardless. If they make the school team, but are a bench-warmer, maybe they just like practicing every day and being a teammate.

Parents want, in a perfect world, a) their kid to be a starter on the team, b) their kid's team to win every game, c) their kid's team to be the best in the country. Obviously, that's not going to happen but for a very small percentage.

JB

[Unregistered]

Maybe they shouldn't be on the team and 10 min is a gift? It all comes down to U-16 thru U-18 no more then 16 on the roster.

No U16 - U18 team could function with only 16 players. Too many injuries and as they move toward U18 too many academic related conflcts with the soccer schedule. This is EXACTLY the reasons all players should be getting quality playing time, because you are going to find your team at some point dependent on your bench. You dopes that don't get that fact expose your inexperience and are doomed to see your teams go up in smoke.

Over 18 players dosen't work either in the case of dedicated players.

[Unregistered]

Thanks.

IMO, a kid should be playing for a club team where he/she will get plenty of playing time in a league where they can be competitive in all of their games and win about 1/2 of their games. To my mind, that's a good fit. If it's a MASC team - great....MAPLE team - great... Region 1 team - great.

Put the kids in a position where they can succeed. Let them enjoy the game. Let them have success (yes, including winning games). There's far too much emphasis on driving toward that college scholarship that such a small fraction of youth players will ever get. The cream is going to rise to the top regardless. If they make the school team, but are a bench-warmer, maybe they just like practicing every day and being a teammate.

Parents want, in a perfect world, a) their kid to be a starter on the team, b) their kid's team to win every game, c) their kid's team to be the best in the country. Obviously, that's not going to happen but for a very small percentage.

JB

In a perfect world yes a parent would want that. But I am sure that the vast majority of parents know it is not a perfect world.
Unfortunately it is 2 way road and I can pretty much say that even if a coach had 18 players of identical abilty we would still have the same playing time problem?
Do you know why?

[Unregistered]

In a perfect world yes a parent would want that. But I am sure that the vast majority of parents know it is not a perfect world.
Unfortunately it is 2 way road and I can pretty much say that even if a coach had 18 players of identical abilty we would still have the same playing time problem?
Do you know why?

Yup, because Mom and Dad think theirs is better than the other 17 :)

JB

[soccerfan48]

Some college coaches will go pretty deep into their bench - check out College Of St. Rose boxscores. They also happen to be ranked nationally at #1 - and IMO would beat many of the lower tier D-1 schools.

Most college coaches use only 14 or 15 of their 23 to 27 players, season long. Although not many youth players get to be part of a college roster, only about half of these "successful" youth players actually get to play NCAA soccer on a regular basis.

Facts are facts. Go look at the stats.

Sometimes it is better to go to a good D2 or D3 school team and play, than it is to go to a D1 school and watch from the bench for three or four years.

[Unregistered]

Best off going to school to study, and play soccer for a break/fun. I also think they should let kids on the bench do their school work. Coaches are bonehead stupid.