Playing time

[Guest]

CBs seem to run less so I can see them playing the whole game.

Exactly. CBs and goalies run the least, so are the lowest priority for subbing to get fresh legs. For CBs, most teams also have less competition and fewer kids who can really play the position. These two factors combine for more minutes.

[Guest]

Exactly. CBs and goalies run the least, so are the lowest priority for subbing to get fresh legs. For CBs, most teams also have less competition and fewer kids who can really play the position. These two factors combine for more minutes.

If a player stinks and runs less due to position, they still stink. Put your best players 11 on the field, end of story. Never is the answer, let’s play a below average player 100% because they have no competition at their position. Make competition.

[Guest]

My experience, at the younger ages, was that parents complain when their kid plays CB or D/goalie in general so if you find 2 that don't complain they generally played the entire game. I've seen many good strikers and mids that made great CBs or outside defenders that either they or their parents complained about being on defense.

We found at the younger ages there were a lot of kids who were happy to play CB because the CBs got the most touches on the ball since the coach did a great job focusing on building out of the back

[Guest]

If a player stinks and runs less due to position, they still stink. Put your best players 11 on the field, end of story. Never is the answer, let’s play a below average player 100% because they have no competition at their position. Make competition.

That's not the argument. Once you get into more well-developed teams as the kids get older, you can't just switch kids around to all positions during matches without giving them time to learn the position.

But, even then, from what I've seen, the chances of having overflowing talent options for forwards and midfield is higher than for the CB/defensive specialists. Good teams will have 2 strong CBs who are just as good at their position as the top CAM or striker. But they're more likely to have depth of options for forward/midfield.

[Guest]

That's not the argument. Once you get into more well-developed teams as the kids get older, you can't just switch kids around to all positions during matches without giving them time to learn the position.

But, even then, from what I've seen, the chances of having overflowing talent options for forwards and midfield is higher than for the CB/defensive specialists. Good teams will have 2 strong CBs who are just as good at their position as the top CAM or striker. But they're more likely to have depth of options for forward/midfield.

Mids often become d as they age which is why they should be learning different positions in practice and switching positions in friendlies. Plenty of mids can fill that role given their skill sets if given proper coaching if cbs. Point is never put players who aren’t at the level on the field just because you don’t have other center backs. Make competition by moving kids around and get your best players on the field.

[Guest]

“The modern centre-back role requires versatile players who can affect the game in several ways. If they are not able to perform all aspects of their required role to a high standard – both in and out of possession – the team’s approach can suffer. “For example, if you have center-backs who don’t pass well, the entire team suffers. The days of just stopping attackers and clearing the ball are over. This is why it’s not uncommon to see mids move back when they get to college or high level club.

[Guest]

Point is never put players who aren’t at the level on the field just because you don’t have other center backs.

Nobody ever said that. The point is that even if the top 11 are your best 11 players - full stop - the odds are that players 12-15 will be midfielders/forwards rather than defenders.

[Guest]

Nobody ever said that. The point is that even if the top 11 are your best 11 players - full stop - the odds are that players 12-15 will be midfielders/forwards rather than defenders.

Makes sense. I’ve just seen situations where 12-15 are better than the cbs but the coach never developed alternatives at cb for whatever reason so doesn’t have options. This approach resulted in lower tier players getting significant time on the field which negatively impacted the team.

[Guest]

Most clubs don’t truly coach defending. Fast and athletic rewarded and makes up for terrible defensive technique. Plus opponent usually has terrible touch so athletic and fast look good.

[Guest]

My kid plays about 50% of the minutes, but they also play 20+ games in the Fall, so it works out

[Guest]

My kid plays about 50% of the minutes, but they also play 20+ games in the Fall, so it works out

My kid plays about 40% of a 70 min game and played about 17 games .. not good enough so we are leaving.

[Guest]

My kid plays about 40% of a 70 min game and played about 17 games .. not good enough so we are leaving.

cool, more time for others then. You can play 100% of a rec team that plays 9 games if you want

[Guest]

This has probably been discussed to death but currently U14 team with 18 rostered, everyone is committed so pretty much 18 at every game. Except for a few positions where player stays on full time, rest of kids splitting half time. Is this normal, should we be satisfied with this? Came from a team where roster was not as big so most played 75% except maybe some low performers. Just feels like half a game a week isn't worth it but also see other teams all have a lot of players too so wonder what is the norm.

Playing time has never been fair, my opinion if your child is playing 10-15 mins a half, you should move on to a different club.

[Guest]

Playing time has never been fair, my opinion if your child is playing 10-15 mins a half, you should move on to a different club.

So how does this work at scale? Is the idea to force a broader situation where coaches play every kid equally? Is that really desirable across the levels? Somebody has to get fewer minutes.

[Guest]

So how does this work at scale? Is the idea to force a broader situation where coaches play every kid equally? Is that really desirable across the levels? Somebody has to get fewer minutes.

Basic math tells you that if you had 17 field players for 10 spots they could each play 41 minutes or just shy of 60%. So yes equal play is possible and fair if you care about teaching kids soccer instead of winning (and by the way no one cares about a club teams record except people on this site).