Due possibly in large part to my own modest-or-worse athletic endeavors or not granting my kids a genetic boost at these early stages, my expectations for them are usually have fun, work hard, play smart. I don’t know that my children have ever been the best on a team and most aren’t usually the worst either, so I temper my expectations a bit. With that little prologue out of the way, I had been thinking in terms of kids that work really hard, maybe harder than everyone else, but still may not be near the best on the team. You hear coaches say things along the line of how great it would be to have 10 other players like that on their team. I hesitate to compare it to “Rudy” as the team I follow in football has an historic walk-on program, but something similar. Maybe I am being a bit cynical, but how much does working hard really matter to a coach or the other parents? Are they paying lip service to the kid that gives 100%, when what they really want is someone that already possesses some unteachable trait (size, speed). They may love the effort in practice and hope it rubs off, but at certain levels the fastest kid seems to play unless they are such a liability with the ball to negate the speed. Soccer seems to play out different than other sports with the more pay oriented structure. The slower developing, hard worker, may not stand out in tryouts. I imagine the fastest kid or the one who kicks the farthest is going to catch the eye of the evaluators before someone lacking a physical advantage. Are those evaluations able to identify the grinder or hard worker or do those kids often find a way to get noticed just with high motor/effort? I hate the thought that it could just be over for some kids before high school even starts. I’m not thinking all of them should have college or professional opportunities, but to be done at say 13 or 14 because you can’t make a club, seems rough. Maybe it is easier to make a HS team, but it’s probably loaded with Club level talent too? As always, I am appreciative of any input or opinions anyone wants to provide. I’m not viewing this (yet, at least J ) as the scorned parent of a kid that failed to make a team. I can’t say how that team stacks up against other clubs, etc., but it wasn’t my main motivation.
"Work hard" is something that should be done, regardless of talent and "unteachable traits." When someone come to me about playing time, a typical response is how "hard I work." Well, good. That's what you're supposed to do when being a member of a team. That's something you can control. Not working hard is immediately putting a player down the pecking order. If a kid is not getting playing time and continues to say "I work hard," then maybe they should work harder at the skills necessary to get the playing time. One example, I had a player who always prided himself in working hard, especially outworking other teammates. He was a starter as a freshman, but as a sophomore fell down the pecking order. I was clear with him in the spring (of his freshman year) that he had a rough spring and hopefully that got the "sophomore slump" out of the way early. Sophomore year was definitely a slump. Add into that, we did have a formation change and that reduced his opportunities too. He worked hard, but he didn't do what he needed to. He didn't connect passes. He didn't use his left foot. He said he wanted to be an attacking player, but his first thought was to play square/back...every time. I started utilizing him as the first sub as an outside back that could help us get another person forward in the attack. Every time...he'd look square or back to pass. He'd have a chance to maintain possession and he'd try some 40-yard shot. Is it work hard that's the issue, or is it working smarter?
It is probably a little of both. I may see worded my initial post poorly. I am not thinking of the kid that demands playing time solely based on the work they put in. Not so much how the player thinks, but more so the coach. I also didn't want to imply hard work should equate to playing time. In your example, what did that kid do as a freshman to earn the starting role? Or how do you identity the kid that is a slowly developer? Maybe that is where I was going.
Sometimes the player can do everything he or she is asked for and still can't get playing time and then it is time to get away from that coach. Yes, I went through this with my youngest. We then chose club over coach and it has worked out beautifully.
Hard work matters. Soccer development is a marathon, not a sprint… Yes, it can seem like “certain” types of kids get favored at times, especially by early youth coaches who don’t know any better or those that should, but don’t care…and it can be frustrating… I’ll tell you this, kids who have to work harder for it early on, will often out pace those who seemed have it easier on the way up later on…. My kid was probably one of “those kids” the last few years….big, strong, fast….and in a lot of ways, I wish he would have had to have worked harder for it…because some of those kids who didn’t get all the playtime my son has had are starting to look pretty damn good, mostly because they have had to work so damn hard for it…
Thanks! I know even just academically you can see that play out. My siblings (and I can see some playing out with my kids) used to say I would do better in college because I had to work in HS...and I hated that notion I was less than them,but it seemed to play out that way. I like your marathon vs sprint comparison. That is sort of where I was coming from. That some kids might not get noticed.
I get that sometimes it may not equate to playing time, and I don't want to imply it always should. It sounds like in your example , your child met the coach's expectations. I haven't reached that point yet except maybe a little with my son and football.
She never missed practice or a game. Worked hard in games and practice. He basically didn't like her. He had 5 players that he secretly trained on the side and when we and another family wanted in on this extra training he said no and ended it for everyone. BTW this was u10. He pulled this team from one of the top club's in the area and became Technical Director of middle tier club. We left him and stayed with the club. Got on a new team same club. My daughter has blossomed under her new coach and has got back all the confidence she lost under him. The sweetest part is most of the parents that left eventually saw through his BS and came back to our club.
As a coach, I expect my players to work hard. It's something that should be a "given" when playing a sport. In reality, it's something that is required in the work force too. An individual shouldn't "work hard" because there are external motivations, he/she should work hard because it is the right thing to do. Any study shows this: productivity out of individuals is greatest when there is buy-in and individual motivation for the greater good. In my example, the freshman earned a starting role because he was pretty coachable. He did what was asked within the team's philosophy. In his sophomore year, he was about his style, his ability, his work ethic. It was no more about the team and what was best for the team. Through the course of a season, a coach should be able to see where players were and where they are headed. This is part of the reason I do not like "tryouts." Sure, there are some that will rise to the top. But, for the majority, a 2-hour session isn't going to determine what a play could be like through the course of a season (or few seasons). That's where scouting, recruiting, and word of mouth play so much bigger of a role in team selection. No matter the age group.
I coach at a rural High School in a southern state playing in its lowest classification(read size). We are an hour drive from the nearest club soccer opportunity. The vast majority of our players are Hispanic. Until recently the school did not even have a middle school program. In the time that I have been with this program, I have had the pleasure of coaching two "hard workers" that turned some speed, a lot of desire(hard work) into playing. In both of these case they were white kids who were late comers to soccer. The Hispanic kids they went to school with had been playing soccer they were toddlers. Player number one I did not coach until he was a junior when I became the coach but I had met him when he was a freshman. He knew that I coached soccer and began asking me many questions. He would pick my brain on drills formations etc. He became a student of the game. He was a decent athlete,of average size with good speed. He started playing soccer seriously with his Hispanic friends when he was in eighth grade. I became the coach of the team when he was a junior and he earned a starting position. As a senior he was co captain of our sweet 16 team and he earned a small school college scholarship. Player number two again was also a late comer to soccer. He was a little undersized but has decent speed. As a freshman he was the player that the others would say "why are you playing him" when we would put him in at a scrimmage/drill as a ninth grader. He was the true hard worker. He would always push himself to do more and more. He is the player that at the end of practice would come up to you and ask "coach what do I need to practice on?" He would go home and practice on these things with his little brother.(looking forward to coaching the little brother in a few years). Also a very smart kid both in and out of the classroom. He will probably be class valedictorian. He is the type of kid if we would ask him what he did wrong on a play he would/could actually be self critical. As a sophomore he had already become an unquestioned(even amongst his teammates) starter as an outside back. He worked that hard in the off season and played street ball with his peers.
I agree hard work is to be expected regardless of age or level….I further agree that merely “working hard” should not impact or dictate playtime… However, with that said, I think we need to differentiate between a more play-to-win environment like High School vs. a more developmental environment like club, especially u-littles… With U-littles up through HS (maybe slightly before), the rule of thumb should be, Good enough to make the team, good enough to play….not to say everyone has to be getting the exact same playtime, but everyone should be getting meaningful playtime… High School is certainly different…you play the best players you have that offer you the best opportunity to win….
There should also be a reasonable expectation of what constitutes "hard work" depending on the age and level. At the youngest ages, simply not being disruptive at practice might be enough to clear the bar.
I was a college coach for 8 years. Recently stepped down from that to pursue high-level amateur soccer (and to move closer to family). I have coached HS and club too. In all areas, cuts were something that were "done." I refuse to cut. Don't believe in it. If someone wants to participate in the sport, I'll bring them in. It only makes the sport better (and hopefully the individual better since they'd be around a quality group of teammates). I was president of a club for 3 years, we did everything we could to accommodate kids who wanted to play -- the club was around 75 kids before me and they cut players at U8.
Yeah, it was extremely disappointing. It come down to this: we have a team already set, we cannot accept new players, and we won't go looking for more coaches and/or a spot for your kid to play. So, EVERY year when the age group rosters expanded, they needed players. They were always unhappy that they'd always get kids from YMCA who weren't any good. Well...think about it morons, you cut them 2+ years ago. Of course they won't get any coaching to be better players. Fought parents and coaches about the system for the first year. It changed rather quickly. And...they wonder why their school district of 4500+ (K-12) kids only had 22 girls come out for the soccer program. The boys program had slightly more, but still way low for that number in the district.
My two cents--the developmental model we use here--I hate to call it a "system"--does indeed tend to weed out kids at the age of 13 or 14 for the very reasons you list...BUT, that's because most of the slower, smaller, less aggressive players "take the hint" and give up around that age. As noted before--my son was one of those kids who was just a little too slow/small/passive to suit a couple of club coaches at a couple of pretty good club teams. But he really loved playing, my wife and I were willing to stick with it even though we were getting less than encouraging feedback from coaches and certain other parents, so we kept supporting him and kept signing him up for yet another season. And then adolescence came, he began to close the gap athletically (but never completely closed it, as he is, like your child, also the product of less-than-Olympic-quality genes, to put it mildly!), came out of his shell, and he ended up having a great HS career and finished playing at a good club team. And now he's on his second year of college soccer. As @mwulf67 noted above--it's a marathon, not a sprint. At the younger ages the club coaches are going to place their bets on the kids who just seem more naturally gifted, faster, more athletic, etc. That means that they will sometimes over lookkids like yours (and mine). So it's up to you to not get worked up about it, so that your anxiety doesn't rub off on your kid. Let them enjoy it and feel good about how they're doing. They should be competing with themselves right now, not with the other kids. Keep playing, keep getting better, and let the rest run it's course.
OK, let's talk about the "no cuts" for a moment. There is a limited amount of playing time during a game (minutes * # of players). If you have too many players, someone is not getting (to use a previous term) "meaningful minutes". Let's say you're playing 9v9. IMO, a roster larger than ~16 isn't a good thing. Now, if you only have 17 people tryout, ok, keep all of them. But let's say you have 20 or 21 try out. IMO, that's too many for one team, but not enough for two teams. Also IMO, what I think a club CAN/SHOULD do is take 5-6 of those 21, give them reduced fees, tell them they can train with the travel squad, but they should register for rec (assuming that's available) for playing time. So those who are advocating for no cuts, how do you handle 21 kids trying out for a team that will play 9v9? Take them all and cut playing time from all?
Our club separates tourney fees from training fees. In-house games and friendlies are included in the training fee for an age group. My daughter's U10G group has 18 girls on the team, but only 11 or 12 are rostered for tournaments. For friendlies and in-house games they try to balance out the numbers of games played for each girl to the best of their ability over the course of the season.
Thanks as always for the sage advice! I understand there is always some attrition for whatever reason (pretty sure this is it for my daughter that plays volleyball). We also know people that hate did club for years and just decided they were done with the sport when they came to college.
Modified pool play… For example, add one more tournament then you normally play and everyone is guaranteed one less tournament then the total… You keep more kids playing, the same amount of games/minutes, with just a little extra work on the part for the adults in charge…
21 kids 9v9 is a 2 team situation A team 11 B Team 10 Bottom 2-3 of A plays with B Top 2 of B plays with A
DD's club did the "rotating" players last year. As a parent, I wasn't really crazy about it. First, trying to keep track of which games/tournaments DD is playing in got confusing in the middle of the season. Second, the bottom 2-3 players of B really IMO did not deserve to be on the select team, much less playing. Granted, DD is not a high level player, but she at least understands the basics of positioning. Now, I'm not saying the system can't work, just that I don't like it.