Loyalty

[Unregistered]

snipe Channing

Where is the loyalty that coaches show their players? They are chosen at tryouts then sit bench. They go to practice work hard and get nothing in return. How can anyone be loyal with that type of situation?

That is a difficult situation. You sound very angry. Maybe the level is too high for your child or the coach is truly a jerk and needs to be removed. I would also question how the coach conducts his training sessions. Does he/she even notice the hardwork put in? Tough situation though.

I am a DOC, and here are my recommendations:
U10/12: as close to equal playing time for all

U13/14 Elite: Minimum 40% playing time
U13/14 non-Elite: equal for all

U15-18 Elite: Minimum 30%
U15-18 non-Elite: Minimum 40%

Kids do not develop without game experience. Training is vital, but game exp. is just as important.

[dd2]

That is a difficult situation. You sound very angry. Maybe the level is too high for your child or the coach is truly a jerk and needs to be removed. I would also question how the coach conducts his training sessions. Does he/she even notice the hardwork put in? Tough situation though.

I am a DOC, and here are my recommendations:
U10/12: as close to equal playing time for all

U13/14 Elite: Minimum 40% playing time
U13/14 non-Elite: equal for all

U15-18 Elite: Minimum 30%
U15-18 non-Elite: Minimum 40%

Kids do not develop without game experience. Training is vital, but game exp. is just as important.

I appreciate the post and recommendations. A couple of questions:

If a coach in your club did not follow these recommendations, what action do you take? If, for example, the coach's teams are in the State
Cup, and the coach believes that playing more than 13 players will probably mean losing the game because those 13 are much better than the next 5, would your club approve of a decision to not play any of the 5, or play them only token minutes?

[Unregistered]

I'm not nearly as cynical about this "loyalty" thing as others, and I'm not someone who believes that in the "good old days" things were different or better. People should do what's in their best interests, and it isn't clear that the loyalty spoken of in rose-colored tones has ever existed.

In order for "loyalty" to mean something in this discussion, "loyalty" has to mean allegiance beyond a person's self-interest. Sure, you can say that person A is loyal to person B who is good to A, but that is acting in self-interest. If person B began treating A poorly, or if some better opportunity came along, and A would leave B, then A was never loyal.

So, when someone says that people used to be loyal, I understand that teams might have broken up less often, etc. But why? Did people in "the good old days" set aside their own interests on behalf of their youth soccer teams? And did coaches put aside the interests of their teams and clubs on behalf of individual players? Or, did teams not break up because there were simply fewer options available? You can't jump clubs when only a few exist, and I think there were very few soccer clubs in the early 1990's when the original poster was playing.

I wonder if the statement "nothing could have broken us apart back in the day" exaggerates the truth. Sure, the players liked each other, but what if one of them dreamed of playing in Europe and got an offer to go? Might he or she have gone? And what if the skill level and dedication between the players ultimately differed too much? Would they still have stuck together? Perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all teams from 1992 were like that.

In short, I think teams stick together when like-minded individuals find each other, and by good chance their abilities and desires don't change. Once club soccer began growing, more clubs appeared, and competition emerged. Competition means that people have more options to choose from, and not surprisingly people began making those choices. That doesn't mean people making choices have lost these "better" old-fashioned values. People from "back in the day" would have made these choices if they had them available.

And so that's how it is these days. Some clubs candidly admit that they're about building the most competitively successful teams they can. They're no more loyal to their players than the Red Sox are to theirs because a player is on the team as long as he or she will help win more than the next available person. For players who want that experience, they knowingly try out for those teams. There are other clubs who want to form teams that stay together longer, but understand that they will not have the same competitive success as some other clubs. Players can choose these teams if they want too, but need to understand that their most talented teammates will sometimes leave. Of course, not everyone who wants to move is going to get to, but such is the nature of soccer and every other competitive endeavor.

A lot of the posters in this thread seem to blame parents or kids for being too ambitious. They're too greedy, wanting to play for the "best" team available. Personally, I don't fault anyone for wanting to play at the highest level he or she can. Would any player resist a call from a regional or national team? Only a few teams consistently play in R1 Premier, etc. Kids who want to do this therefore have to move to those teams. More power to them.

If I had to pick a villain in the whole loyalty drama, I'd choose those who fault players as disloyal when players choose to move. As long as clubs cut players, it isn't disloyal to move to a team where a player thinks she'll do better. My experience is that clubs take almost every player for granted, save the few superstars who would never be cut. Coaches control playing time and rosters, and some use it to squelch dissent from those who believe they're not getting a fair shake. When the unhappy leave, they're called disloyal.

One last thought. Suppose we had "ultimate loyalty," and people never, ever switched teams. Would that really be good for kids? I think kids are far better off being able to switch freely. There's no way we'd have chosen the perfect club for my kids at U11. Why should players be stuck with choices made when they didn't understand what soccer is about or what their level of ability and desire are?

This is one of the best posts I have read on this forum- perceptive, well written, objective and persuasive. The only comment that I take slight issue with is the folllowing rhetorical question: "Would any player resist a call from a regional or national team? Only a few teams consistently play in R1 Premier, etc."

From my own experience, I can tell you that not every player that is recruited to the Stars or Scorpions on girl's side, or Bolts on Boy's side, goes to the club. Kids may choose to stay with a less competitive club for many reasons, including coaching relationships, uncertainty about playing time or status on new team, desire to play multiple sports, higher priority on academics than athletics in college search process, and even "loyalty" to current teammates and coach.

[Unregistered]

I am between 27-31 years old. When I played club soccer in New England as a teenager no one changed clubs, coaches stayed on board and life was great, and I loved playing for my club. I still my ex-teammates around the holidays. There is nothing that could have broken us apart back in the day. Now, things are much different, much more cynical. Where has the loyalty gone?

Thoughts?

People learned their lesson well from how they and others were treated by the clubs.

How many kids on your team were cut every tryout when you were playing to make room for better players? If a club shows no loyalty to the kids that come to play for them, then how can they expect any loyalty in return from the adults? Clubs set the standard, so you've got what you've got and unless clubs want to consider placing a greater emphasis on old fashion ideals, like loyalty, over our cultural thirst for winning, it's unlikely you are going to see any change.

At your age you were around at the beginning of Maple. Most of the coaches were probably soccer dads tied to the club by geography and coaching for no pay, so that would explain why coaches didn't move. They either quit coaching or started their own clubs when they became dissatisfied with their club experience - one reason for the proliferation of soccer clubs in the state. As the system moved toward paid coaches and the cost to play club soccer increased from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars you then had parents spending lot of money and expecting team results. You see it in this forum all the time. Peoples priorities at all level are out of whack.

[Unregistered]

I wonder if the statement "nothing could have broken us apart back in the day" exaggerates the truth. Sure, the players liked each other, but what if one of them dreamed of playing in Europe and got an offer to go? Might he or she have gone? And what if the skill level and dedication between the players ultimately differed too much? Would they still have stuck together? Perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all teams from 1992 were like that.

OP apparently forgot about animosity that existed back in those days between town and club teams, as the top town players moved to club teams. This was considered disloyalty back in those days.

[Unregistered]

Unfortunately, loyalty is an outdated concept.. Tough to teach it to the kids when it isn't shown to them by anyone other than their parents.

[Unregistered]

People learned their lesson well from how they and others were treated by the clubs.

How many kids on your team were cut every tryout when you were playing to make room for better players? If a club shows no loyalty to the kids that come to play for them, then how can they expect any loyalty in return from the adults? Clubs set the standard, so you've got what you've got and unless clubs want to consider placing a greater emphasis on old fashion ideals, like loyalty, over our cultural thirst for winning, it's unlikely you are going to see any change.

At your age you were around at the beginning of Maple. Most of the coaches were probably soccer dads tied to the club by geography and coaching for no pay, so that would explain why coaches didn't move. They either quit coaching or started their own clubs when they became dissatisfied with their club experience - one reason for the proliferation of soccer clubs in the state. As the system moved toward paid coaches and the cost to play club soccer increased from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars you then had parents spending lot of money and expecting team results. You see it in this forum all the time. Peoples priorities at all level are out of whack.

What a great post. With all these merges taken place, I hope the coaches would have a little loyalty for their players. But I really feel that many kids are on the chopping block.

[Unregistered]

It's a cyclical problem: the more competitive the parents got about their kids playing on the "best team possible" because, after all, we are paying big bucks for our little mias and landons to "develop as soccer players" (read: reach for that college scholarship brass ring or better yet, national team) when if they really just wanted to "play for fun" they could just stay with their town travel teams and play with their friends, but instead well-meaning parents (see sarcastic icon here) encouraged (at best.... forced is more likely in many instances) our player to leave what might have been a comfortable, fun situation with a nice team and good coach but hell, they didn't WIN and is my player really getting any better, and what are we paying for anyway? ------- so then the club is losing best players and feeling pressure to recruit better players to try to maintain the team's best and middle group, which results in the lower end of the roster getting cut to make room for "better" player (because, after all, isn't that obvious at one tryout at U-13)? ---------- which results in disharmony and dissatisfaction on the team and certainly does away with all the fun of just playing soccer ---------- which results in parents pulling their kids (but it was Mia who wanted a better situation and a winning team and didn't feel she was improving, really! it wasn't us, it was her! she is just driven and obsessed about soccer! and she really does know that she will play in college at age 14, and shows so much promise she really might get at least a partial scholarship, and to a school she really DID choose for academics first, I swear!)

And so the cycle continues.

We parents convince ourselves we are doing what our child wants. Sometimes the kid just doesn't know what he/she wants so we nudge in the direction that we think is best, and we are all a bunch of competitive New Englanders (this forum is proof alone) so of course that means the best team or better coach even if it also means pulling our kid from all his/her friends in a nearby town.

And I speak from experience and have learned my lesson with oldest child (who finally returned to local team and really DOES just play soccer for fun now, and no, it wasn't because he was a bench sitter) and luckily have two younger that benefit from older sibling's experience and while they ARE different children and maybe have different goals, needs, abilities, you can bet we'll be sure as parents to respect loyalty in the future and demand the same from any club team they might join in any sport.

And I read some posts of some of the U-11 through U15 pre-high school crowd and just shake my head because you will see, it will happen to some of your kids one way or another -- too much pressure results in no enjoyment in the game, or the hour drive each way to practice is just so draining the kid can't do his homework and god forbid they want to play 2-3 high school sports and try to still be on that top team, or the changes in team dynamics make the whole experience simply poisonous. And unfortunately the parents who think their kid will never change that passionate focus on soccer will be the first to respond to this post saying "Not my kid, you just don't understand how important this sport is to Mia/Landon, so don't use your experience to judge mine" and I really do honestly hope you are right and I am wrong and your kid does go on to national team success and a full college ride and really DOES enjoy playing for a top team just for the "fun" of it and really is totally okay with all the sacrifices and the lack of loyalty from the club if, god forbid, he/she is injured or replaced by an even better player and suddenly finds himself on the bench a lot more than usual, or is freaking out over school because homework can't get done, or is missing parties/prom/participating in music/joining the lacrosse team because it's just a fun experience being on my club soccer team!

But my advice is get off this forum and stop obsessing about every other player and team and bring a chair, sit down and watch your kid smile on the pitch and enjoy his/her teammates whether they are a bunch of winners or a bunch of bumbling losers or somewhere inbetween. And if you stop seeing that smile and start seeing a lot of sulkiness (other than the usual teenage stuff.....) BACK OFF and let your kid make his/her own decisions! And try to teach loyalty regardless of what everyone else is doing!

[Unregistered]

What a great post. With all these merges taken place, I hope the coaches would have a little loyalty for their players. But I really feel that many kids are on the chopping block.

this loyalty searching discussion is too circular to conclude anything.. Loyalty is a matter of prospective
If my kid is tops should i keep him here for the sake of ..or is he best served where he will be pushed??

Im coaching this team and we can be so much better, to i cut some kids for the sake of improving the team for the tops? or do i keep them in status quo??

If my kid is at the low end do I move him out of loyalty to the better players so this team can grow?
etc etc..
everyone involved has their motives weather good or bad is up to what you expect and if they all are clear then there should be no suprises or let downs and you should be with whatever suits you

[Unregistered]

And to bolster that message, see the link about the field hockey player in the commitments thread. Everyone should get a grip! They will be grown and gone before you know it.

We all ought to live by what we say: "I just want my kids to be happy."

And if we can teach some lessons in loyalty along the way, all the better.