Balanced vs. Unbalanced lineups on A team

Ok, you’ve jumped from this club/team is primarily tournament focused (plays a lot of tournaments) to they created team rosters without any regard to league limitations, and now all of sudden this has become an issue….

The more you explain the less I understand…maybe it’s me….

 

I've experienced this situation many times, and the most successful method was training them as a pool (together) and to go with the extra team. There's 2-3 players from the 3rd team that play up with the 2nd, and 2-3 from the 2nd that play up with the first. If it's handled properly there's so many more pro's than con's...

Pros: having one coach lead all players ensures they're all on the same developmental path. This maximizes playing time on all the teams. This allows you to place each team at a level of competition that is appropriate for all players on the teams. These three pieces make it easier to hold on to most (if not all) of the players so when the pool jumps up to a larger game model they'll have enough players. Easy to pay the coach per player than per team, so it actually benefits the lead coach. Bring in a part-time or volunteer assistant to help manage (but not lead) trainings. The secondary benefit is this allows "mentor coaching" for this part-time/volunteer coach, and if the club grows you've developed a coach to take the lead in another area of the program. Logically, if this is run properly, you have more teams because more players stay in the club over time and you have more coaches to handle these teams.

Cons: SCHEDULING. Because players are playing between teams it means you have to schedule all games so these players and coach can actually attend. This becomes difficult on away games where opponents may have conflicts. Just by the numbers: you go from scheduling around 20 games to 30, and anyone thats had to schedule that many games with no conflicts understands lol. It does also take an experienced and professional coach to handle this many players both on and off the field...it's not for everyone.

Then again, I've never seen this sold to a board of directors...only ever at for-profit clubs (which to be clear: doesn't necessarily mean they're making huge profits...I've seen non-profits rake in more cash lol).

 

I bet those parents are paying the same for training and team activities - less the tourneys.

 

I would never have my kid in that sort of environment - we ran clear of that BS years ago.

Great for the top players/athletes but if your kid is not in that group then they are just taking $$$ from un-informed parents.

 

No the reality is that your club is saying that if you are 9 years old and are not a top player - you will never be a top player so here is a coach with less experience, enjoy less time on the ball but be sure to cut that check on time.

It's exactly what's wrong with youth soccer.

 

And people wonder why "B" teams always leave and they don't have enough kids to play 11v11....

 

It sounds good on paper and might work in some situations, but not all. Scheduling was a huge issue for us when the coach had 3 teams to cover (different age groups).

As far as everyone under the same coach, I can see that as a plus, but how long does the coach stay with the team? A year? Maybe two? And shouldn't the DoC keep an eye on development? Herding nearly 30 nine year olds would take more than a single coach, and possibly more than two.

 

I disagree with that. Just because you're on the B team at 9 doesn't mean that's where you're going to be at 10, much less later years. There are a number of kids on DS' team who spent time on the B team.

Are you one of those who think if you're not on the top team, it's not worth it?

 

What are the league rules on kids playing for multiple teams (presumably in the same division)?

 

Yes - I was going to add that but I did not want to twist a knife. But you are right - some of the B parents are going to ask themselves why there is such a huge gap in training and it's likely enough will leave to lose that team altogether - happens all the time for the very same reasons the OP has outlined here.

What I don't get is that the bottom line is retention and growth. Of course you need a solid plan to get there but to disregard all but your top teams will forever limit a club in terms of players and opportunities.

The same can be said on the top end as well.

 

It should not take more then 2 decent coaches. If it does then they are not decent coaches. I've seen it done very well at u10 with 1 coach (30 players) - many times in fact.

 

You don't disagree - you mis-understood

We are on the same page. I stated that it sounds as though this club is pushing kids to B teams with lower end coaches - less time on the ball and so on, which is completely wrong because it assumes that those players will never be A players - thusly why give them the opportunity to train with the A team...? That's grossly incorrect.

Kids should have one traininer running the sessions with 2-3 coaches and should all train together.

Good coaches can move players - depending on the drills to the appropriate groups when called for.

 

And the clubs need to teach and inform the parents about Pool training. At U10 as in this example, you probably have a number of new soccer parents who may not be knowledgeable. It needs to be stated right from the start that A and B team players will change over the years, And that age groups move from 7v7 to 9v9 to 11v11 so you need to have everybody getting the same training opportunity.

And to ppierce34 - I am guessing if the club you are at is an old club with a big reputation and there is the amount of separation you described at the youngest ages, that what you will see over the years is that they add new players (from outside the club) to the A team during the roster growth expansion years vs. developing the U10 "B team" player into a U14 A team player.

 

That can be a problem in rural areas. I have to drive 30 minutes in the winter 5 days a week (one way). In the Spring and Fall it's 45-50 minutes one way - 4 times a week, sometimes 5.

 

I am puzzled by this comment. Did we all take a time machine back 10 years and you're at Chicago Magic?

 

I really wish we could multi-quote.

I'll agree that B team coaches aren't as good as A team, but that doesn't mean they are "bad" or even "lower end". And how does that mean a B team has less time on the ball? Around here B teams go to their own tournaments and own leagues, so they play just as many games, and have just as many practices.

Yes, having a bad coach/bad organization could result in what you say, but simply being on a B team doesn't necessarily mean that.

Are you also considering the entire club when you say one trainer with multiple coaches? I think your idea is great if you're only talking about one team. I don't know if that would work for U10B/G, U11B/G, and U12B/G. If you're using the same trainers/coaches, that's a lot of teams to cover.

 

For a lot of kids, the A team is the first step on a journey which ends in quitting the game. How many A team players (at U10) make the jump to HS, much less college?

Despite what many parents think, being on the B team is not necessarily bad. In theory, the B team will enter leagues and tournaments that will put them in competition with others around their skill level.

My son is an A team player. DD is playing on an A team, but just because that's all the club has, there is no B team. If she went to the club my son plays for, she'd definitely be on the B. And before you say "see, you take your kids so they can play on the A team", her team is our local team. My son's club is 30 minutes away and costs a lot more. Would she get better training on the "large town" B team than she does on the local A team? Probably not. But I'm not sure she's getting better training on the A team.

I think the key is being realistic about your child's skill level. Don't go shopping simply because they're not on the A team, or they don't start. Go shopping for better coaching, better locations, better organization.

One of DS' classmates used to drive 90 minutes twice a week for practices simply because he got put on the B team at DS' club. I don't get that.

 

I admire the kids who fight their way through a demotion beyond u10 or so, and I know a few who've done it at my son's club (one who just did it as a high school freshman, the second time he's gone from B to A since he joined the club as a young kid). But yeah, for lots of kids it's the ticket out of soccer.

And at mid-size clubs (like my son's) and smaller clubs, the drop in talent between the core of an A team and the core of a B team can be steep, which I would guess makes that drop a shock. To date my son has only played on A teams, but I've always wondered how he'd respond if demoted (and we don't have alternate club of anything close to equal quality without a long commute).

 

For the IWSL, you roster the larger number on the lesser ranked team and then have them play up.

 

My experience is that it doesnt matter a whole lot before U13. My kid only played on the B team at younger ages but is a rock solid player now. She's surpassed the majority of the former A team regulars now. Putting in the touches at home made the difference.