I have heard more and more comments (both here and at games) regarding playing time (or really lack of) and the failure of coaches at all levels to sub enough. It strikes me as a bit odd, because in my experience most coaches sub too often and it breaks up the consistency of their team's effort. Especially in HS, where the skill differences betwen players can be so significant. First, players in the HS game should be able to play 80 minutes. Especially with the 10 minute half-time break and the use of time-outs by both teams. I know this runs contrary to what many parents seem to believe, but in most instances a player needs to learn to pace themselves so they can perform well for an entire game. Obviously the unlimited substitution rules employed in HS allow for the opportunity to use reserves not just as a way to bring in a player with a different skill set (and fresh legs) but also to provide additional rest for starters - but to honestly believe that such additional rest is necessary (or always productive) runs contrary to soccer at most other higher levels and in most every other country. Second, just because the youth roster is typically 18, and there is an expectation that those 18 will all play, does not mean that an 18 player rotation is ideal for soccer - at any level. Most colleges will use no more than 3 -5 subs. That is a 14-16 player rotation. In closer games that can be at the low end and may only be a sub or two each half. No question that when a coach recognizes that fitness is a problem (and it is mid-eason) they are left with fewer options and will need to sub more, but rarely will they lock themselves into a particular "magic" number. Substitution should be on a case by case basis - and certainly not everyone in HS or college should expect playing time. Am I dead wrong on this?
-
-
100% correct, Harry.
IMO, competitive town and club teams, as well as middle school and high school teams are about competing for a championship. Try to win as many games as possible, make the playoffs then try to make a run in to the finals. Coaches need not apologize that certain kids do not get playing time. Letting lesser-talented players on the field for these teams just for the purpose of getting them into the game IS NOT FAIR to the kids who want to win.
There is a place for equal playing time. It is called "recreational soccer". Put your child in a rec league if you an equal playing time environment.
To my first point - coaches of competitive/school teams should always have a pre-season team meeting with parents present to bluntly explain their philosophy and what to expect, i.e. not every one will play in every game, kids who work hard in practice can earn playing time with sheer hustle, attitude and improvement. Remember, complaining parents usually do not ever see how their kids perform in practice. Are they goofing around, going through the motions? Or, are they working their butts off to impress the coach to earn a role?
I also believe that once a kid enters the 9th grade, it is incumbent upon the kid - not the parent - to address the coach directly if they have an issue with playing time, etc.
JB -
There are too many players on a team at U-16 and up. This also includes high school. We know clubs roster as many as 18 and sometimes up to 21 and this is for money only. There should a limit at 14-16 players on a roster. Because the kids sitting on the bench are taking time away from the ligit players and this is why they need to make a 2nd team. With so much subbing you only hurt the flow of the game and the chemistry of the players. Just an example look at the u-16 Scorps in MA they have 15 girls on the roster and they are a great team because they know how each other plays and know where each one will be. The problem with RI club is that it's to much of a town attitude with too many friendships.Comment
-
Great post! To many kids playing club should be playing rec only. Time to get honest.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Hold on. I don't have a problem with a marginal "rec level" kid playing for a club team if that's what he/she/their parents want....as long as they understand the limits of their kid's abilities.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
There are very good club/town teams and there are lesser club/town teams, there are very good club town leagues and there are lesser town/club leagues. There is a place for lesser-talented kids to play competitive soccer above and beyond rec leagues. Why deny a kid more opportunity to play soccer games if they want to? Keep them busy, keep them playing the game as long as the kid wants to play. It keeps the kids out of trouble and you never know which of those kids will become a "late bloomer".
One of the things I like about SuperLiga and MASC is that there are 3 (sometimes 4) divisions - 3 levels of competition. In MASC there's A,B,C, in SuperLiga there's Anchor, Classic, Gold.
The problem occurs when a parent insists that their lesser-talented kid plays for an "A" town or club team in an "A" town or club league...then insists that their kid get equal playing time.
JBComment
-
I meant "Rhody" division.
Sorry Oscar :)
JBComment
-
Nefwyt
The problem occurs when a parent insists that their lesser-talented kid plays for an "A" town or club team in an "A" town or club league...then insists that their kid get equal playing time.
That's when the coach has to lay down the law. Many times this will result in parents taking their kids to another team, hoping for the increased playing time somewhere else.Comment
-
Which is exactly what should happen.....which is why parents need choices for where their kids can play soccer. And, the more choices, the better.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
JBComment
-
This is a great topic and pertinent to all youth sports, not just soccer.
One thing that I have seen over the years is that when a competitive team has a PARENT/COACH, the philosophy of the team - competing for wins vs. equal time - will generally follow as such:
If the Parent/Coach's kid is a talented, top player, then that team will compete for wins. Why? The Parent/Coach's kid's playing time is a given - no one will question that kid's playing time even if his/her dad is the coach. The kid is a starter or star and the Parent/Coach wants their kid's team to win.
If the Parent/Coach's kid is a marginal, lesser talented, non-starting player, then that team will have a an equal playing time philosophy. Why? The Parent/Coach figures that they're putting in the time, volunteering to coach. Thus, they want their kid to play, regardless if it hurts the team's performance.
JBComment
-
I agree that there is a team for every kid. But when you are playing club that is in the running for the State Cup or has won the state cup in the past those players that want to take it to the next level are hindered from the bottom of the line up. They take players time at tournaments and showcases. The bottom line up will not help the top 14 improve. I also think it comes down to a social issue. There are girls at the u-16 and up that are there because it's a social thing for them and their parents. Also, there is an issue when the coach keeps the players and parents around because they have been there for a number of years. I think that many top level players move on because of these issues and at the end it hurts the team because the coach can't make the cuts and keep too many kids on the bench.Comment
-
Of course you are correct. It's part of the coach's responsibilities to make sure this doesn't happen. JBOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
If the coach isn't making the cuts and other parents of the top players mentioned that there should had been more changes and no one mentions it except to each other how should the coach be informed without being the one to point it out?Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Gee, in the town I live in, there's not too many parents who would shy away from expressing unhappiness to the team coach. Besides, there are ways to express concern to a coach properly.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
JBComment
-
-
99% of all club team have a full roster for the money not the talent.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
Comment