All-Purpose Soccer Parents Thread

Really though, I shouldn't have to take my kid to pickup games to ensure he's getting to play enough soccer when he's already at a pricey club.

It's the same feeling I get when I go to an expensive restaurant and get a chicken breast that's dry and so I have to go to Chick-fil-a afterwards to feel fulfilled.

 

You're assuming facts not in evidence. You have no idea (or did the coach tell you) that minutes playing for Team B would subtract from Team A minutes? Does he coach both teams? If not, he won't know how many minutes your son plays for the other team.

Personally, I would probably be honored they thought he could play for both teams. "Yes Coach, we would love the opportunity to play with both teams." Now, you say B's game is twice as far. Is that 15 more minutes? 30? 60? Is there enough time between games?

And funny, you weren't concerned, or didn't mention, that your son played extra minutes in Game 1. We even suggested the coach is balancing out minutes over multiple games. You apparently chose to ignore that. Yes, you are becoming "that parent".

After raising a stink about your son's lack of minutes, it didn't dawn on you to come back, say you talked to the coach, and you're fine with the answer?

 

What if he reads this message board? Then it would be obvious who I am if I posted here right after talking to him. So I didn't want to right away.

But yes, I will tell you now, officially that we had a discussion and things are better now. And thanks for your feedback Sam!

 

I'm paying for youth development. And at such ages I think games are a big part of development. Of course good training is important too. But at the younger ages I think that more time should be spent actually playing soccer than training. Maybe 70/30 or something

 

Dear everyone, I want to thank you all for your feedback on the recent discussion of playtime. I talked to the coach and things are better now. He said he does try to get each kid playing at least half the match. He gave reasons why he played some kids more and some kids less.

 

Structured or unstructured, I wish he could play more soccer. I guess yeah I could setup some playdates for that.
Playing is also fun because it's a social experience for the kids.
I wish he could play in 2 or 3 leagues at once. It would be possible if the games did not overlap but that's impossible to know upfront.
Kids in other countries play way more soccer than here because there are more kids playing everywhere, and more density, so they just all go outside and play.

 

The most teams my son was on was three at one time... MS, HS JV, and club. He had played like 5 or 6 games in 7 days (including four games in a two day tournament). That was not a good idea.

Depending on how your fields are setup, talk to other parents of the team. See if they would want to stick around after practice and just let the kids play. Or would they want to meet at an area park on other days of the week? The opportunities to play are out there. You just might to dig them up (or organize them).

Does your son want to play that much?

 

MS as in middle school? How can a kid do that and High School at the same time?

My kid also just started fall baseball. But they said games are on Sunday to not conflict with soccer which is usually on Saturdays.

Sure he would play. I take him to a drop-in every week and he likes it. Also take him to a park sometimes where there's kids and they do an impromptu pick up game.

Talking to other parents is a good idea. It's a process though, some are standoff-ish and others already seem to have their little cliques. But I've met a few and will meet more.

 

Here, 8th graders (MS is 6-8) can also play HS JV (but not V). The way we did it... club games/practices took priority. Then MS games, the JV games/practices, then MS practices. All the coaches were on board.

 

I have sort of stayed quiet on this thread, but this one makes me feel the need to jump in. This could not be more wrong. Especially at younger ages, it is all about training and much less about games. They get more from watching games at that age than playing. Even if your child is the second coming of Leo Messi at this age, the other kids on the field are not, they bunch, kick it hard, and in general are all over, this really limits what your child learns and can actually lead to some terrible habits (i.e. get it from the bunch, kick it long into space, and outrun everyone). The ratio should be at LEAST 70/30 training to games, and I would say closer to 80/20. I am including free play, messing with the ball, etc. in that number, but ball mastery is the most important thing at 7 years old, you do not get ball mastery in a game, you get it in training.

 

I disagree. Reason being that at that age fun is important. And playing soccer is more fun than doing drills. Source: I have a 7 yr old

Older kids (teens) and young adults have more maturity and more tolerance for training. 7 yr olds have lower attention spans.

That said my kid gets plenty of training. But he by far enjoys playing soccer more. And enjoyment is key

Most kids do learn while playing too. They see someone else do a move and they try to emulate it. They are learning the team dynamic. They are learning about space and what happens when no one plays defense. etc etc

Other countries have more play time. Maybe we should simply copy their model rather than try to reinvent the wheel??? (hasn't gone so well for us)

 

Over the weekend my kid played for both the A and B teams. I noticed a stark difference. The A players were not getting in each others way. They spread out when their teammate had the ball. The B team crowded their teammates and huddled around the ball, which of course is quite typical for that age group.

The A squad really made a big leap forward in their overall development in this game. For the first time I saw them play it back to the keeper intentionally to swing it to the other side of the pitch. It was great to see. The started to play a semblance of real soccer.

 

Not unexpected. However, inquiring minds want to know... how much playing time did your son get in each game?

 

Haha you had to ask...
Ok, so he got 30 mins in the first game and 40 in the 2nd game. (25 min halves, 50 min games).
30/50 = 60% first game
40/50 = 80% 2nd game

I actually feel a bit guilty about the 2nd game (B team) because I don't want to take mins from those kids. They need more development than my kid. It seems though that coach always uses at least one or two A kids on the B games, but not always the same kids. My kid hasn't played in every B game, but he has for A since he's formally on A.

But yeah it feels good.
Again, I thank this forum for the feedback you gave. It helped me find a solution.

We had a great weekend of youth sports. My kid also played his first baseball game ever.
Hope you had a great weekend too Sam!

 

@NewDadaCoach If you take one thing from all of this, I think you need to "go with the flow" more. You were so upset you were ready to pull your kid from the club because he got less than 50% playing time in one game (out of three).

We all want what's best for our kids. Sometimes what's best for the kids is for the parents to just step back and let things happen. I know it's been posted here, but the soccer path/career is a marathon, not a sprint. Actually, you can probably say that about any youth sport. In the marathon, you've reached mile 2 (maybe). We'll try to help you using our experience (some of us have gotten past mile 20, some have finished). Just be willing to listen.

ETA: The weekend wasn't the best. But this is a new week with new possibilities.

 

Are you saying that I need to chill? lol you are right man. I do.
But part of the reason is that I had just come off from coaching my kid's indoor team and there were too many kids on the roster, too many subs so I had thought about subtitutions ALOT over the past 6 months. So it was fresh in my mind and impossible not to analyze the current coaches subbing. At least give some credit for my self psychoanalysis!

I can't stop thinking about the kids passing over the weekend. It was really beautiful to see. I don't think we can ever go back to Rec now. It would be hard to do. I guess this is what you pay for huh - enhanced training and knowledge and to be around other similar kids who can play at the same level.
I guess the silver lining to being the "star" on a rec team is that at least you can work on your dibbling a lot. I don't think that's a bad thing. But I really dig the team passing stuff too. I was wondering when that would start clicking. I had guessed sometime between U8 and U10.

Granted it was the perfect game to start passing. It was a total mismatch, we were too dominate so the coach told them to string together 5 passes, then 10, before going forward. It was LOW pressure. But a real good setting to experiment.

I think whether your team is losing by a lot or winning a lot, there's a way to grow in each situation.

 

There are lots of ways for the kids to have fun playing soccer that aren't "games," defined as events in which you dress up all the kids in their best kit, bring one team in to play the other, call in some outside refs and line up all the parents along the sidelines to cheer.

Scrimmages, short-sided games, and an endless lineup of "drills" set up as games can be lots of fun for kids (and teens, and adults alike) while they also give way more touches and repetition and focused development than in any typical game.

 

I'm curious what people have seen and think to be effective in this scenario. Over the last five years I've seen most coaches do a variation of this when one team is killing another ("killing" can mean being ahead by as few as three goals in my experience). Some coaches seem to think that it's not honorable to run up the score too high (see also the reaction after the USWNT beat Thailand 13-0). So when their team gets ahead "too far", they put restrictions. I have seen (1) "o.k. guys, you have to string (x) number of passes together before you can score"; (2) "none of you are allowed to score until the other team does" (my son had a ref actually tell him in the middle of the game that he wasn't allowed to score any more after he had scored 5); and (3) coaches take players off of the field until the game seems "fairer." Each of the approaches has their pluses and minuses. I prefer the third approach myself, though that's only when the team can still give players enough playing time, i.e. not too many subs on the bench. I don't like one and two because they change the game too much, punishing players for getting in good places that they're supposed to be in. Repetition of good, attacking play is important to development. I would rather a team play a man or two down and be able to play "right" than be given the artificial restriction. What are y'all's thoughts?

 

I like stringing together passes because it gives them a good opportunity to work on that under low pressure. They are young and passing is a challenging thing for this age group.
I think #3 would be fine too, although that puts more kids on the bench which is not so good. I might take off the strongest players and only play the weaker ones.
I agree that repetition is good. I don't view passing as a restriction necessarily, it is an important skill they will benefit as they grow into the game.
I think there's not a whole lot you can do if there's a big mismatch. It's only a game though. It will be over soon enough.

 

Set up situations where players who have never scored a goal (or have not scored a goal in the game in question) are the only players who are allowed to shoot.

 

For upcoming indoor season, I'm trying to decide between 2 different venues.
One place does 6v6.
The other is 5v5.

I like 5v5 better because fewer kids on the field mean each kid gets more touches.
But perhaps the difference is nominal.

We've already played 4 seasons at the 6v6 venue. It's an older place. Typical indoor soccer place, a bit worn out. Vending machines. Scoreboards (I know, it's not nice to keep score but it's kinda fun and you can see the time clock as well).

The 5v5 venue is brand new. They sell beer and food. No scoreboard (which is fine but I do like seeing the time clock).

Another nice thing about the 6v6 place is that their website shows the rankings and scoring leaders. The 5v5 place - the league info seems to not be updated, seems an afterthought.

 

I would focus more on the quality of the soccer being played in each venue and the level of the teams that tend to play there.

The rest of the stuff (clocks, food, scoring leaders) is all superfluous to me. If the teams suck, will it matter that they post rankings?