Development: Play time vs. practice

My bias has always been that excellent training against top players and first rate coaching always trumps game minutes. This is especially true at the younger ages, say U14 and below, where players are still learning technique and skill.

In fact you can argue it is MORE advantageous for your daughter to be in the position she is in. She knows she has to improve to become first choice and, if she has the desire, the work ethic, and just the right level of talent, she will improve. Some starters never learn that lesson until it's too late.

I have personally witnessed at top clubs B team players become A team starters over the course of two or three seasons. The reason they did is because they trained with the A teamers...and worked harder because they had more to gain.

Players who are top players in a lesser environment may stagnate...or worse, regress. At your daughter's age, progress is the most important product.

Finally, for girls, the social aspect of a team is critical -- this was, of course, one of Anson Dorrance's major insights about coaching females. If your daughter is happy in the environment, and fits in with the team, and the training/coaching is top notch, why change? If at some point, she wants to go where she can start all the time, you can do that then.

Now? Learn and improve.

 

One of the myths of youth soccer is that kids are inevitably unhappy being bench players.

On the contrary, my son has been on two different best-in-state teams at two different clubs, and in each case the bench players were fighting so as to remain on the team. None of them even thought about trying out elsewhere. Meanwhile, the stars of the B teams were eagerly hoping to be promoted to the A team, even though they knew that at least early on, they would become bench players.

I'm talking at young ages, too, for example U11.

 

JR, I would refine that a little bit.

Players are less UNhappy being a bench player on an A team (particularly if it's a top team) that being a key guy on a B team.

A kid who remains "happy" as a bench player, though, will remain a bench player. Those who are bench players, but who think they should start, have a much better chance of becoming starters.

So, some measure of "disatisfaction" had better be present.

 

Sure OK, but my brief experience suggests that the kids will stay. So they can't be that miserable.

Whereas I know as a fact that several of our B team stars are considering moving to another club next year.

The interesting thing is that the B team plays in the top division, aka Classic 1! And it trains with the A team. So the kids wouldn't be leaving so as to join better teams, or to get better competition, or to get better training, or to play more in games. They would be leaving because it eats away at them on being on a B team. They think that they're A material.

People write about kids soccer as if development or winning are the keys, but really I think that the key is ego. The kids want to feel like they're successful. Developing so as to become better players, winning games, and playing time are only parts of that greater whole.

I should also add in deference to this being a girls' board that my examples are from boys' soccer, so perhaps my comments do not apply as well to girls. Sorry about that, folks.

 

I would say that bench time on a better team will make you a better player....the practices are tougher -- and you have something more to try and achieve (becoming a starter for that team). Being #1 on a mid-level team is great, but you won't get pushed in practice or games.

Great topic -- Boys or Girls

 

Iv seen it happen the other way around...On our ODP team, we had a girl that was a starter during the younger ages, last yr she lost her starting position and she soon left the team altogether. This same girl also lost her starting position on her club team and now she wants to go down to the B team and be a star.
One other thing that this thread somewhat brings to mind, We were told by a D1 Coach (Her Club Coach) that it is much easier to make any team, Club, ODP, Regional ODP and even Natl Team, The hard part is staying on that team. And its more important to be on that final team when your older more so than when you were younger.

 

A little different spin.
The motto in our house as well as around the Northe east.
"Train up, play age appropriate." Most of the high level clubs in our area encourage kids to train with older age groups, some scrimmaging and even with the premier level kids to play against boys the same age or one age up.
Skills, skills, skills.... and more skills.
Teams playing in leagues As previously posted, 14 is the turning point. Some kids are just coming around and others are bailing out of soccer all together in order to specialize in some other sport.
Playing with and surrounding yourself with winners and playing on a winning team will build a winning attitude.
Winning at all costs however is not a way to develope players.
Its a very delicate balancing act.

 

A coach in another forum made this great quote on the subject of playing time:
"The game is a better teacher than the bench."

IMO this is particularly true for any child U12 or younger, especially if she keeps the traditional schedule of 2 practices/1 game per week. I've seen more coaches who are completely clueless why little Suzy, who practices 2 days a week and plays most of every game, progresses faster than Little Mary who practices as much, but is only receiving a quarter of the game playing time. You can not reproduce the intensity and value of game speed in practice, especially with girls team where competition against their friends does not come as naturally as it might with boys. Anson Dorrance has built an empire on this knowledge and his ability to teach his players to compete with one another in practice, and he is coaching the best of college women, so keep that in mind.

Ask yourself why your child isn't receiving more playing time. Is it a decision the coach has made in the best interest of your child? Or is it a decision made in the best interest of the team's success, the club's reputation and the coach's resume? If your child is only getting 20 minutes a game at U11, how much time will she see when winning games really does become important (assuming she's still with the team)? The more she can play, the better she will get and that should include game time. I would not get hung up on the issues of starting, but IMO she should play a minimum of 15 minutes per 30 minute half at U11. At this age, placing her with the best coaching available with a coach who considers the game an extension of training, where she can play as much as possible is probably far more important then worrying about the level of the team or the competition, because undoubtedly the team has been selected based on their athletic ability and not their skill and understanding of the game. At U13 or U14 you can start to be more concerned about the level of the team and the competition.

BTW here's what the "experts" say (of course many will tell you that the "experts" don't know what they are talking about):

BEST PRACTICES FOR COACHING SOCCER IN THE UNITED STATES
http://www.ussoccer.com/uploads/Documents/cms/ussf/BestPractices.pdf

U-10 through U-12

A Discussion on Substitution
Patterns at this Age:
Players should be given the opportunity to play soccer for extended, uninterrupted periods of time. This allows them to get a better feel for the flow of a soccer game. For example, it is more beneficial for a player to play for 12 straight minutes, than for him or her to play in two 6 minute periods. Substitution should be used to address injury, fatigue and lack of effort. It should not be used to punish a player for a soccer-related decision. At a minimum, players at this age should be playing 50% of the game. Ideally, the rosters are small enough to allow for close to 100% playing time for everyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective Playing Time Relative to Game Format and Roster Size

http://www.oysan.org/CoachingArticles/EffectivePlayingTimeRelativetoGameFormatandRosterSize.doc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mayouthsoccer.org/download/129_21st_century_player_development_manual.pdf

 

In my view, a coach who does not create game-like conditions training-- for boys or girls -- is not doing a good job.

One of Anson Dorrance's insights was that you had to go to special efforts to create that environment for girls. But it can be done.

 

Of course it can, but very few coach do and what Dorrance does at the women's college level would be inappropriately applied to U11's.

BTW, unfortunately my experience has been that this is the exception, not the rule. Most A teams recruit players from other clubs before they move a B team player up to the A team. Most B teams seem a depositories for the kids that get cut from the A team. I know JohnR has indicated that is not the case at his club and I wish it were the case all across America, but I just don't see it happening much in my part of the world.

 

It is probably more of an individual situation then what any of us have said at this point....

I bring up being a secondary player on a great team is better than a starter on a good team -- because my daughter has been through both situations. I saw her grow more on the great team -- it pushed her more. But her personality needs that. R2 brings up an opposite situation. We can all go around and around talking about what is best, but the best you can do is figure out works best for your kid -- and that might be that your kid is never going to be a college (or even HS player) -- and rec is the place to be...and that is OK.

I do agree that game time is important -- and when my daughter was a secondary player with teh great team, she still saw about 50% playing time -- so I do agree that getting into the games is obviously important.

 

I think all things being equal, it's better to play on a team that will give you the most game time. The problem is, rarely are all things equal, so faced with that problem exactly what decisions should a parent make? Perhaps SoccerPhD should tell us more about his present situation, the level and experience of the coach, and the environment the club provides and then what the alternatives might be.

 

If she's running two miles during practice and only getting 20 minutes of game time, when is she actually playing soccer?

This sounds like a great team to be on if your aim is to be on the winning team. But I don't think this would be right for my daughter, and it sounds like I'd want her to get something different from playing the game.

Maybe I've misunderstood, but I'd guess that any u-11 on a team that runs 2 miles (ever, under any conditions) should either be ruthlessly clawing and scratching her way to the starting team or would develop better on a less competitive team.

 

Good point. A 2-mile run for U11s, that's a bit goofy. Don't get me wrong, I've seen stuff like that. But I don't approve.

My son's U13 boys team doesn't do anything like that. They just play soccer. They're good, too. It's not like they're some second-tier team.

 

That is not a good thing, because it often means that the players are being coached for the short term, not the long term. Those that I am familiar with often have coaches who are coaching every minute of play and the kids are restricted from making their own decisions. Additionally kids are not allowed to take risks, experiment or learn from their mistakes because to do so might jeopardize the success of the team. For example, in my neck of the woods is a club who advertizes their girls teams many trophies and titles, but in order to get them at U11 and U12, they never play back to their keeper, their defensive players are taught, "When in doubt, kick it out", their players are pigeon holed in their positions (as early as U10, I might add) and it is very likely that there will be kids who sit the bench (I think the worse case was a U11 team that travelled to a tournament down south where at least one kid didn't play a single minute in the final game and very few minutes in all the others, but darn it, they came home with the trophy!).

Both John and I have U13's who play for nationally ranked clubs and they do nothing like that. IMO precious time that should be used to develop soccer skills is being wasted on running. Even worse, this type of running is probably counter to the type of running soccer players do - short bursts over short distances that often includes twist, turns and changes of direction. A good coach has to be as efficient with his/her training session as possible, recognizing the brief time he or she has to work with the players. Most, if not all, of the fitness training at this age can be accomplished with the ball as part of the technical and tactical training. In fact, a player should be able to achieve the correct physical conditioning if during training the movements and activities are similar to those of the match.

That's a plus, but more importantly is the quality of the training. Frankly, I don't think much of the quality from the bits and pieces you have given so far.

Private training is good if you see a particular area that needs work, but getting the proper training in team training sessions is better. You shouldn't have to pay extra for that training; however, as you have mentioned that she lacks quickness and is a bit clumsy (which maybe because she's going through a growth spurt right now), you might want to consider some speed and agility work with a good trainer.

 

If good and fair people are training her and she get's on average 20 minutes ina game that's not bad.

How many season has she been with the coach and the team? If she is in her first season with this team and this coach she is doing fine.

There are some exercises she can do to improve quickness and the musle type needed fro quicknes.

 

I am attempting to resurrect this topic. What about this example -- a choice involving decisions of play vs. practice:

Choices for U10 girl who played on a Div 1 top ranked team at the premier club in the immediate area; played at U9 for two years.

-- Stay with the team with a new coach who has a good training philosophy but implementation is average and individual attention will be low; players are above average for club soccer at this level and typically extremely athletic; Games -- she would play about 50% in games, typically 1-2 per weekend in Spring and Fall

-- Go to a new team at a smaller, lesser known club with a very good coach with high level playing experience where individual attention will be much higher; players are average for club soccer, not as athletic or technically developed; Games-- she would play closer to 75% in games (1-2 per weekend in Spring and Fall)

-- Attend group training sessions with excellent coaches with high-level playing and coaching experience, mostly in Europe but also in US; indvidual attention is extremely high, Academy style developmental program. Playing with highly talented and technically developed players, many of them older. Games-- No games other than street soccer 8 v 8 one day a week for an hour and futsal games in the winter.

 

I would choose this. Heck, if it were my kid, I would do this till u14,15. Of course, I would be practicing with her as well on things I think are important like control, 1st touch, fakes and feints, etc.

 

Thanks for your response -- the training sessions work on all the basics in addition to more advanced, so that is what I am leaning toward, but everyone on her old team thinks we are crazy -- it is as if she is quitting soccer completely by doing this. It isn't that I care what people think, but it amazes me that this option is considered so "fringe."

The biggest argument I have heard is that she won't be able to keep up with the other girls because she won't be playing any games. She won't be competitive any more. Is there reason to believe there is any truth to that at all?

I'm just trying to understand why some people say "the game is the best teacher" whereas others feel that games aren't as important, at least until much older ages.

 

Game is the best teacher but later on. For your daughter, it's individual practice. Foot skills, agility and balance with the ball. Also, make sure she studies and gets good grades in school. Don't listen to the bozos around you. A lot of bozos on this board as well. The old posters, karl k, johr r, bird etc., all had good things to say. They have kids who went through the elite of elite clubs. You may want to go back and read their posts. Forget all the clown that are on the board now.

 

I will give you a really annoying answer: pick the one that most engages your kid. As a quick look at the background of a random dozen pros will show, players come up in all sorts of environments, from the rigid, intense academy system of Ajax or Lille to the legendary street-ballers of Brazil or Jamaica or Cote D'Ivoire who don't play an "organized" game until they are 9, 10 or even 11.

In my experience, the biggest issue for top level girls is not poor training or not enough game time, but burnout. You learn best when you love your environment - maybe not love every second, but overall be in a situation you want to go to, even when it rains, is a million degrees etc. etc.

Once you have good coaches, motivated kids and good quality teammates and competition, the rest is dancing on the head of pin.

 

Ditto here. My son was the top scorer, including many GWG against top teams not just part of an 8 goal blowout. On the B team. A team coach (and head of club) talked him up, told him he'd be moved up to A team, and then did not even give him, or other B team players a chance to try out with the A team. They even took players who tried out with the B team, did not excel but did okay, and moved them to the A team tryouts. And throughout that past year, they had dumped A team kids, one of whom was extremely disrespectful and negative (to the point of regularly causing hand balls on purpose at HS age), onto the B team which messed up the B team's chemistry. And of course, when you put an A team player on the B team, your schtick is promising him more playing time! What do you think happens to the top B team players in that case?

My son left the club and is getting excellent playing time on an older team. Part of the reason is that there are just not that many older opportunities; teams with 1997s and 1996s seemed to be set and he joined a 1995 team. He doesn't have a choice to join a 1997 or 1996 A team. They scrimmage against the 1997 team (that has 25 players; his 1995 team has 18 regular players and often is 16 due to injuries) and will play U20 in the summer.

YMMV is the point. Is your child happy? If my son was playing poorly and struggling, and didn't get playing time but the practices were good, he would be happy to have a chance to improve. But the opposite was true, and the coach and the club just did not care. Results did not equal more playing time.

Even though we are in the NYC area, the choice would be an hour to practices and home games or play up. He could have stayed on his on-age team that is around #20 in the state, or joined an older team with the same ranking in their age group. His new team is #13 in the state and beat a state cup champion and several semi-finalists. He is getting at least a half of a game, and a lot more on occasion. The coach plays him at different positions, all three lines but usually mid whereas he used to be a forward only (every game no matter what, no matter if he asked the coach if he could get some mid time).

Happy? Yes, definitely. Could it change? Of course. But at least with this team, the practices are very good, organized, the players don't have hissy fits like his old team, and when they are at practices or games, they are there to play soccer, not mess around or do their own thing.

 

I would select the option with the best training environment, where she'll receive more attention. She's still at an age where she should be developing her fundamental soccer skills. As long as she's getting some sort of games of scrimmages where she can apply what she's learn in training to a game she'll be fine. The idea is to get comfortable with the ball. Out of the options you presented, I would choose the last one, especially if it includes winter futsal where the others do not.