High School Soccer Coaching

[Unregistered]

A high school coach rosters 20 players. He plays 11 "starters" without fail every game, all who almost always play the entire game. One or two other players see some playing time occasionally, but very limited. The remaining 6 or 7 players maybe see some playing time but only when the game is well in hand. Their total time is probably not more than 60 - 70 minutes at best over the course 15 plus games. Most games they never see the field. They are all capable players, maybe not as strong as the "starters", but perfectly capable club level players. The team wins a lot because it is loaded with talent relative to most other high school teams.

I am curious if people feel this represents good coaching and leadership.

[Unregistered]

A high school coach rosters 20 players. He plays 11 "starters" without fail every game, all who almost always play the entire game. One or two other players see some playing time occasionally, but very limited. The remaining 6 or 7 players maybe see some playing time but only when the game is well in hand. Their total time is probably not more than 60 - 70 minutes at best over the course 15 plus games. Most games they never see the field. They are all capable players, maybe not as strong as the "starters", but perfectly capable club level players. The team wins a lot because it is loaded with talent relative to most other high school teams.

I am curious if people feel this represents good coaching and leadership.

Unfortunately in high school it is all about winning. Could they win with the other players playing, possibly but the coach must either be a real piece of work or he doesn't think they can. It is not fair & should high school be more fair than club? We would all like to think so, but in reality winning means more nowadays then fairness & comradery.

After 4 years of high school soccer done with, my dd experience was it was fun at times, miserable at times & sometimes a huge waste of time & she played on a winning team.

If your a club player then focus on club & getting strong & healthy & stop sitting on the bench. Time better spent at the gym.

[Unregistered]

At most high schools the drop off after the starters is pretty huge. At our school the starters were all solid club players but after that it was pretty iffy. In games that the subs played alot the level of play dropped off drastically once 3-4 of the subs got in the game. The basic skills of trapping and passing just weren't there. If the coach had subbed more the team would have lost a lot more games. I guess it comes down to whether the primary goal of high school soccer is to win games or just keep everyone happy(which is impossible BTW).

[Unregistered]

A high school coach rosters 20 players. He plays 11 "starters" without fail every game, all who almost always play the entire game. One or two other players see some playing time occasionally, but very limited. The remaining 6 or 7 players maybe see some playing time but only when the game is well in hand. Their total time is probably not more than 60 - 70 minutes at best over the course 15 plus games. Most games they never see the field. They are all capable players, maybe not as strong as the "starters", but perfectly capable club level players. The team wins a lot because it is loaded with talent relative to most other high school teams.

I am curious if people feel this represents good coaching and leadership.

Unfortunately, that's the nature of HS soccer now, especially with the ranking system. It's not about playing time and not everyone gets a medal, sorry! If your kid were in the top 11 players they would start. However, many parents play the 'politics card', and that's not true because most schools are under pressure to get results. If playing time is an issue I'd suggest a rec program where playing time is guaranteed.

[Unregistered]

Unfortunately, that's the nature of HS soccer now, especially with the ranking system. It's not about playing time and not everyone gets a medal, sorry! If your kid were in the top 11 players they would start. However, many parents play the 'politics card', and that's not true because most schools are under pressure to get results. If playing time is an issue I'd suggest a rec program where playing time is guaranteed.

Sounds like the advice of someone who has experience with this. Let us know which rec team your kid is on and if it is any good.

[Unregistered]

A high school coach rosters 20 players. He plays 11 "starters" without fail every game, all who almost always play the entire game. One or two other players see some playing time occasionally, but very limited. The remaining 6 or 7 players maybe see some playing time but only when the game is well in hand. Their total time is probably not more than 60 - 70 minutes at best over the course 15 plus games. Most games they never see the field. They are all capable players, maybe not as strong as the "starters", but perfectly capable club level players. The team wins a lot because it is loaded with talent relative to most other high school teams.

I am curious if people feel this represents good coaching and leadership.

I'm guessing your kid plays at Tualatin.

[Unregistered]

Unfortunately, that's the nature of HS soccer now, especially with the ranking system. It's not about playing time and not everyone gets a medal, sorry! If your kid were in the top 11 players they would start. However, many parents play the 'politics card', and that's not true because most schools are under pressure to get results. If playing time is an issue I'd suggest a rec program where playing time is guaranteed.

Rather than bore us with your predictable intellectual diarrhea rant, why don't you answer the question?

[Unregistered]

In HS, playing time goes to the top players. Does the football coach play the backup QB every game just to get them some playing time? In basketball, does your coach play every player? Does he/she rotate starters so everyone feels good about themselves? If you have a tennis team, does the #1 player play the other team's #1 player or does the coach just randomly put players out there so all of the players feel good? In HS, you want playing time, you have to earn it. If your kid is on varsity, isn't it because she's better than those on JV, or do you just rotate kids through JV and Varsity.

[Unregistered]

In HS, playing time goes to the top players. Does the football coach play the backup QB every game just to get them some playing time? In basketball, does your coach play every player? Does he/she rotate starters so everyone feels good about themselves? If you have a tennis team, does the #1 player play the other team's #1 player or does the coach just randomly put players out there so all of the players feel good? In HS, you want playing time, you have to earn it. If your kid is on varsity, isn't it because she's better than those on JV, or do you just rotate kids through JV and Varsity.

This is a nonsensical comparisons to different sports and different situations. The simple question still stands for you. Is the way this coach runs this team an indicator of good coaching and leadership or not?

Not looking for any more "you have to earn it" or "life teaches you important lessons" or "go find a rec team" comments. Simply looking for your view as to whether this represents good coaching or not, and not what the football or ping pong team does.

[Unregistered]

In HS, playing time goes to the top players. Does the football coach play the backup QB every game just to get them some playing time? In basketball, does your coach play every player? Does he/she rotate starters so everyone feels good about themselves? If you have a tennis team, does the #1 player play the other team's #1 player or does the coach just randomly put players out there so all of the players feel good? In HS, you want playing time, you have to earn it. If your kid is on varsity, isn't it because she's better than those on JV, or do you just rotate kids through JV and Varsity.

Or the upper classmen.

[Unregistered]

This is a nonsensical comparisons to different sports and different situations. The simple question still stands for you. Is the way this coach runs this team an indicator of good coaching and leadership or not?

Not looking for any more "you have to earn it" or "life teaches you important lessons" or "go find a rec team" comments. Simply looking for your view as to whether this represents good coaching or not, and not what the football or ping pong team does.

Why don't you just give us your opinion since you obviously have one?

Does your school really have a ping pong team?

[Unregistered]

This is a nonsensical comparisons to different sports and different situations. The simple question still stands for you. Is the way this coach runs this team an indicator of good coaching and leadership or not?

Not looking for any more "you have to earn it" or "life teaches you important lessons" or "go find a rec team" comments. Simply looking for your view as to whether this represents good coaching or not, and not what the football or ping pong team does.

You are a complet idiot. You do realize that you coach to the quality of the team. No one can answer your question as no one knows the overall quality of your team. All I know is that coaches in every HS sport try to win. Period. If your kid sucks, then don't expect much playing time. And yes, that's good coaching. Keep the crappy kids off of the field.

[Unregistered]

Why don't you just give us your opinion since you obviously have one?

Does your school really have a ping pong team?

No, he's looking for a reason to go bitch to the coach and the AD. He can't face the fact that soccer is no different from anyother team and that every team wants to win. If you have but 11 players who help you do that, then you play those 11 as much as you can. HS isn't about development.

[Unregistered]

Or the upper classmen.

A decision based upon that is definately bad coaching.

[Unregistered]

A decision based upon that is definately bad coaching.

And how many good high school soccer coaches do you know?