Age Appropriate Starting 11/9/7

[Unregistered]

I was pondering this recently due to some bad experiences on RCL A teams. This is a subject for debate which has two sides. I am under the opinion that Youth soccer as a whole (not Washington specific) should not have a starting 11/9/7 type mentality up to a certain age. That age is debatable but I see it at 14. I know some will see the opposite view and say sitting on the bench builds character and teaches kids to earn their spot. My opinion is sitting on the bench will never make you a better field player, is a contributing reason to dropping soccer around 14, and makes the youth soccer landscape once again serve adults/winning. Kids sitting on the bench are benched for a host of reasons other than their just their effort, play or impact.

Thoughts?

[Unregistered]

I was pondering this recently due to some bad experiences on RCL A teams. This is a subject for debate which has two sides. I am under the opinion that Youth soccer as a whole (not Washington specific) should not have a starting 11/9/7 type mentality up to a certain age. That age is debatable but I see it at 14. I know some will see the opposite view and say sitting on the bench builds character and teaches kids to earn their spot. My opinion is sitting on the bench will never make you a better field player, is a contributing reason to dropping soccer around 14, and makes the youth soccer landscape once again serve adults/winning. Kids sitting on the bench are benched for a host of reasons other than their just their effort, play or impact.

Thoughts?

Agree, you don't get better on the bench. no substitute for game experience

[Unregistered]

What is 11/9/7?

[Unregistered]

What is 11/9/7?

Starting 11 players at 11v11. The rest are typically benched.
Starting 9 players at 9v9. The rest are typically benched.
Starting 7 players at 7v7. The rest are typically benched.

Typically the starting players get the most minutes even at the younger 7v7 ages. Some clubs say there are minimums for play time at younger ages. I think 15 minutes per half at the younger ages at some clubs. But it seems to be more of a guideline than a rule.

[Unregistered]

I was pondering this recently due to some bad experiences on RCL A teams. This is a subject for debate which has two sides. I am under the opinion that Youth soccer as a whole (not Washington specific) should not have a starting 11/9/7 type mentality up to a certain age. That age is debatable but I see it at 14. I know some will see the opposite view and say sitting on the bench builds character and teaches kids to earn their spot. My opinion is sitting on the bench will never make you a better field player, is a contributing reason to dropping soccer around 14, and makes the youth soccer landscape once again serve adults/winning. Kids sitting on the bench are benched for a host of reasons other than their just their effort, play or impact.

Thoughts?

Absolutely agree. Had an awful experience when my daughter was 10. Coach just didn’t like her. Said you need to work harder in practice. She did. No more playing time. Then it was my daughter looks disinterested. Not true. One thing to the next. She would rock a practice and a lesser player would start. She would get maybe 10 mins a game. Some kids played entire game. Wasted year. Left and luckily things improved but lost that year.

[Unregistered]

I coach a younger 7v7 age group. I start the first 7 that show up to pre-game warmups. If a kid isn’t playing at least 50% of the game, the family should find another team.

[Unregistered]

I coach a younger 7v7 age group. I start the first 7 that show up to pre-game warmups. If a kid isn’t playing at least 50% of the game, the family should find another team.

Wow just wow. Shaking my head at this statement. Not sure whether to post a few hundred articles and a 20 page diatribe about a coach like this ruining the sport for the kids, giving up on kids this early, not motivating kids for the enjoyment of a sport, not teaching the kids to succeed in the coaches environment, thinking 7v7 is all about winning. etc.....Or just shake my head and realize a coach that posts a statement like this has no ability to ever understand anything other than what he/she understands.

[Unregistered]

My statement means that if every kid on the team doesn’t play at least 50% of the game then the coach is **** and the family should find another team. Remove the filter before you jump to conclusions...

[Unregistered]

My statement means that if every kid on the team doesn’t play at least 50% of the game then the coach is **** and the family should find another team. Remove the filter before you jump to conclusions...

On mod teams or developmental teams, this makes sense. On older teams with full rosters, having playing time guarantees means starters are sitting on the bench for a good part of the game, which isn't good for them either.

[Unregistered]

Comes back to the question of whether it is more valuable to be player 1-11 on the B squad or player, say..., 16-18 on the A squad. My opinion would be the former, but higher player quality in training is important as well.

[Unregistered]

Comes back to the question of whether it is more valuable to be player 1-11 on the B squad or player, say..., 16-18 on the A squad. My opinion would be the former, but higher player quality in training is important as well.

Exactly why the clubs with the most success at player development don't set rosters at tryouts but rather select pools of players that then practice together and move from team to team on a weekly basis as they get better / fall behind.

[Unregistered]

Exactly why the clubs with the most success at player development don't set rosters at tryouts but rather select pools of players that then practice together and move from team to team on a weekly basis as they get better / fall behind.

You are of course speaking hypothetically. I am not aware of a single club in WA that does this. I wish they did. It seems so simple and more player focused. But yet all of these clubs still run the same old tryouts and lock kids into a year of being on a a/b/c/d/e/f/g team. I am sure the clubs truly think this model is what is good for the kids even though the evidence is to the contrary. Dangit, just typing this out I feel bad about myself for once again contributing to the RCL/ECNL/DA/PSPL crap show for another year.

[Unregistered]

I think the very worst part is when a team has let’s say 14 players in a 9 a side game . You are wasting the kids time by playing such few minutes . Let’s remember the vast amount of kids 99.9% are not going to make a career out of the game so why the obsession ? Equal play time or don’t play at all .

[Unregistered]

So many local amateur youth clubs like to pose like they are running a pro academy, and "you have to earn your playing time" is one way. If you are running a pro academy, looking for that one unicorn on your roster that might make the first team, and a lot of the players there are mainly there to give the few elite prospects someone to train with, and the players' training is being subsidized--then focusing on the top players and screw the rest is an appropriate model.

But at an amateur pay-to-play youth club, where every family is paying the same dues, having kids sit on the bench for extended periods of time is bad. These clubs and coaches should be looking to train and improve EVERYONE on their roster, not just the top kids who can win them trophies.

If you are paying for your kids' soccer, and you find your kid either a) parked at the end of the bench, without getting at least 30% (or better, 50%) of game time, excluding injuries or disciplinary matters, or b) stuck on a B team in which s/he is wasting his/her time (i.e. is far better than the teammates), it's probably best to move.

The hard part of this is that many parents (and I've been there) over-estimate their own kids' skill. For many kids, the B team is the best place for them.