Roster sizes

[Unregistered]

Pros vs Cons with large youth rosters ?

Are young players better off playing on a team with a large roster or a smaller one? With all of the clubs consolidating and partnering these days, it seems that many teams are carrying larger rosters. Coaches have an obligation to share the playing time for the sake of developing all players that paid for their training. I see players that were used to playing a majority of minutes in games, now sitting for half the games so that playing time is equally distributed. I understand and respect that this is the fair thing to do, however, I just wonder if these rosters really need to be this big in the first place. I think that it would be better for development to have all players getting good minutes.
.

[Unregistered]

Roster sizes should not be big. Make 2 or three teams if you have to. Not good for a players development to be sitting the bench.

[Unregistered]

I have no idea how anyone can argue that the big rosters are good for players. They are only good for coaches as a hedge against a crazy string of injuries (I have seen it happen that a team has 5+ injured players and I think it makes coaches gun shy to bomb a season because of injuries).

For the most part it just sucks.
1) It means players can't always play, if you have 18+ and have to bench the extras for every game.

2) As the season goes on equal playing time usually falls by the wayside so if your kid isn't the best they end up sitting A LOT. I personally believe it would be better to be on a lower team and play a lot.

My kid has been on both sides of this by the way - ended up on a lower team and it was good because she played a lot, got experience, moved up. Now plays a ton and others are sitting on the bench. But I see parents who demand their kid gets put on the top team and the impact of the kid is not good.

[Unregistered]

Pros vs Cons with large youth rosters ?

Are young players better off playing on a team with a large roster or a smaller one? With all of the clubs consolidating and partnering these days, it seems that many teams are carrying larger rosters. Coaches have an obligation to share the playing time for the sake of developing all players that paid for their training. I see players that were used to playing a majority of minutes in games, now sitting for half the games so that playing time is equally distributed. I understand and respect that this is the fair thing to do, however, I just wonder if these rosters really need to be this big in the first place. I think that it would be better for development to have all players getting good minutes.
.

Large rosters are terrible. cause so much unhappiness. hard to believe that the extra fees are worth if for the trouble that comes with big rosters.

[Unregistered]

The only one that benefits from large rosters is the club owners. Parents need to be smarter and demand smaller rosters or just move to a club with a better philosophy.

[Unregistered]

Mine has been on 24+ and 15. I have no idea how clubs/coaches get away with the huge rosters. If I remember correctly, the extra players kind of dribbled in. It caused a lot of problems with the sitting players. Especially when they weren't told they were not going to be rostered for away games. And sometimes away games are a plane ride and hotel away. THAT was bad.

[Unregistered]

Mine has been on 24+ and 15. I have no idea how clubs/coaches get away with the huge rosters. If I remember correctly, the extra players kind of dribbled in. It caused a lot of problems with the sitting players. Especially when they weren't told they were not going to be rostered for away games. And sometimes away games are a plane ride and hotel away. THAT was bad.

I guarantee parents will not tolerate that. A simple rule in business, keep your customers happy to keep them coming back. No way in hell we would ever tolerate that.

[Unregistered]

I guarantee parents will not tolerate that. A simple rule in business, keep your customers happy to keep them coming back. No way in hell we would ever tolerate that.

It sucked and led to a lot of unhappiness. Some kids left the club but most stuck it out.

[Unregistered]

It sucked and led to a lot of unhappiness. Some kids left the club but most stuck it out.

Parents are scared to make a fuss. If your kid is not the best 1-3 on the team you are always afraid of repercussions. Also "if your parents complain you will be benched" is a pretty common warning give to impressionable children.

[Unregistered]

From U13 and older most starting positions are set. The GK rarely subs out unless sharing time with another keeper. The back defensive line usually plays the whole game, especially the center backs. Then you have certain midfielders who rarely leave the game because they help dictate the pace and flow of their team. And usually the CF will get the most minutes up top. So 6 people out of 11 on the field will play most if not all the minutes. With a roster of 18, you have 12 people sharing minutes of the remaining 5 spots which will look like half the minutes at the very most to 25%. Players would be better off finding teams where they would be considered a#1-6 player. That's the truth. Parents can complain about PT but that hardly results in getting their kid more PT.

[Unregistered]

The back defensive line usually plays the whole game, especially the center backs.

I have noticed this as well. Why?

Are there just not enough defenders? I know our club seems to favor tiny strikers over anyone who can actually play defense. Or are there just a surplus of tiny strikers in MA?

[Unregistered]

Ideally 15 is the perfect number from what I've seen. Lots of playtime for all players, vs. just the top players. Most clubs will carry at least 18, but from what I've seen there are 5 or 6 players that see minimal play time....Can't improve/develop if you're spending 75% of the game on the bench.

[Unregistered]

4-4-2

*(2) GKs, and they each play a half. While I don't like this, as they are rarely equal, need to have a backup keeper. Or, in a perfect world, someone who carries a pair of gloves and can hop in and be serviceable.

* (2) CBs, rarely come off. An outside back who can fill in the middle as needed

* (3) OBs who rotate through

* (3) Wide MFs, who rotate through. You could have (4) if they run as they should

* (3) CMs, an attacking, a holding, and one well-versed to do a little of both. You could have only (2) and see if they can last all game.

* (3) FW who rotate through

15 preferable, 17 players MAX. Anything more than that is too much.

[Unregistered]

I have noticed this as well. Why?

Are there just not enough defenders? I know our club seems to favor tiny strikers over anyone who can actually play defense. Or are there just a surplus of tiny strikers in MA?

Those who run the most get subbed the most.

[Unregistered]

Large rosters are terrible. cause so much unhappiness. hard to believe that the extra fees are worth if for the trouble that comes with big rosters.

It's very dependent on age. Younger team rosters should never be large. Once you hit the HS ages injuries happen regularly so you need more backups - but no more than 20 is needed (worse comes to worse bring up a younger player or from the B team). More than 20 it's a money grab, but clubs do it and parents put up with it. Of course, most times clubs aren't upfront about roster sizes either. ALWAYS ASK. They may or may not tell you the truth but it's worth an ask.