He does a bit of juggling, its just not a high priority at this age. He plays a variety of games. First touch game. Soccer tennis. Accuracy games. And yes he has hit against a wall plenty.
I think the number of subs has a lot to do with it. If you have a lot of subs then each kid gets fewer minutes. I've seen some teams bring basically two teams and sub every kid out at the same time about every 5 or 6 mins, in outdoor. So you're only playing for half the game basically. And mind you this team drove about 2 hours each way. To watch their 7 yr old play for a total of 25 mins. I don't get it. sorry. Seems like a very inefficient use of time.
What you're describing is a real issue, but I don't think the length of games is the crux of the problem.
We had a rookie coach who asked us to guest play and "help out" his team. Thinking they are short of players, we agreed to the invitation. We showed up and found out he had asked 2 other players to guest play plus his entire team all present. Drove 1 hr for 15 mins. Learned from the mistake and now know to ask how many players are there.
I just don't see the point in short games. Seriously. You let them play outside for hours. What's the difference? from a physical/health standpoint. No difference. Low injury risk at this age. They are play machines. No more injury risk than playing on the jungle gym. I get that refs are a cost and stuff like that. But an add'l 10 mins of game time isn't going to hurt anyone. But if you don't have any subs then I agree it's a good amount of mins. Most of the time the kids want to play more. And the parents want to see their kid play more. So after games everyone feels short changed. Everyone except the "administrators". This is why I like to take my kid to pickup. 2 hours. It's great. Once a week. The kids have a blast and get to work on their skills. Is there something wrong about this? Should he not do it? Should I limit his playtime at this pickup game to 25 min halves?
Not one person here has said to limit how much your kid is playing. In fact, multiple have given ideas on what can be done outside organized games. Why do you think games are limited because of injury risk? As mentioned, England has the exact same time limits. Our "better" team managers/coaches (whoever would do the scheduling) would try to book multiple games if we were driving any distance. Of course, that's the problem with getting into "better" leagues. You don't have as much competition as close, so you need to go further. And, you need a set limit. Your game lengths get extended 10 min (5 each half) every other year I believe.
I agree. Rosters that are too large for the age group are the problem. For 7v7, I wouldn't want more than 10 or 11 on the roster, 13 or 14 for 9v9 and 15 or 6 for 11v11. My son's team in his last few years often carried the full 18 players for games. While it wasn't an issue for him, as center back, he rarely left the field. But too often, the 16th to 18th player on the roster wasn't playing more than 10-15 minutes per game.
My kid gets ample play time, that's not what I'm complaining about. It's about game length. Anywho - what do you think about 2 hours of pickup? good or bad?
@NewDadaCoach. Here is the challenge, I don't know week to week if I'm going to have 0 stubs or complete 2nd team. It would be difficult to make game length vary based on rosters. I mean what would you do if team A had 0 subs and B had 5 You trivialize the administrative impact but it is real. There is no field fairy that can add time to the day. If I did the math right, adding 10 minutes to the game length would mean we have to cut 2 games each weekend day. Which means 4 teams don't get to play that weekende
That, and the traveling in the first place. But the latter is probably baked into the geography and suburbanized infrastructure in this country. As an aside--it's likely that when we ask ourselves "what are countries like Croatia doing that we're not?" and the answer is likely "Being a very small country."
...and that's the other piece of the puzzle. If you take a small roster, you might not have enough kids show up to play. If you take a big roster, you might end up giving every kid 10-12 minutes of playing time.
My kid also does 2 hrs of pickup sometimes. I do agree with you that you have to find unsupervised playing time outside of club games. But because I know I CAN find him playing time, I don't have an issue with the game duration. It's easy to say need more game time in the winter. But when it's 90f out in the summer, I would feel guilty to make them play more in that condition.
We went to a showcase with a roster of 18. SIX players were injured (including my son). So there was only 1 sub for the weekend. We travelled because DS was "game time" decision. Another year, different showcase (further though), 19 on the roster, everyone was healthy, but the showcase only allowed 18, so one person had to "sit" for each game.
0 subs is fine. If a kid gets hurt or just wants out then let him and play with a man down. No problemo. That invites a new challenge for the kids which is good. Maybe just don't use refs for league games until U12 or something. We have done friendlies with no refs and it was fine. The parents can volunteer ref. Or the coaches. Everyone takes this stuff way too seriously anyhow. The kids just need to play. And if the parents have to drive them then you should get more out of it not just a few minutes. That's high cost with little benefit. Much more benefit in a 2 hour pickup game. There should be a different model altogether. A sports club where kids can go hang out for a few hours and play various sports. Doesn't Europe do this? Real Madrid and Sporting etc etc... they are sports clubs that are like 100 years old and have many different sports for their members. Including futsal and basketball. Its just that soccer took off the most and so it's #1. But in USA its a soccer only club or a baseball only travel team. Makes sense for teens but under that it should be a catchall since they should be trying differnt sports. This would be the most efficient way to try many different sports. Have it under one roof. And I know it would be commerically viable because you have those big sports places popping up. But those are way too commercialized. You got YMCA, maybe that's the best option but they don't have much variety in terms of the main sports. It's mostly basketball. But I've talked to other parents. They would love a venue where the kids could play some soccer, then some basketball, then some baseball.
It also should be under one roof due to scheduling conflicts. So many parents now have to juggle soccer vs baseball vs basketball. What do we do? Should we sign timmy up for spring ball? gosh how many soccer games and tournaments will we have. are they on saturdays or sundays. will soccer take priority or baseball if there's a conflict? is this ok with the coaches? yada yada yada. Just put it under one organization who can handle all the scheduling. I find it very bizarre the way we do things.
Unless a roster is absurdly large at U10, honestly this isn't the problem that NDC is making it out to be in regards to development. Certainly it seems like a waste of time but the only real in house solution or player based solution is to simply be to valuable to take off the field. have your player talk to the coach about mixing in a different position to stay on the field. Now if rosters are absurdly large then I would recommend a different team or club all together. But the reality, other than perception and annoyance it really isn't that big of a deal and longer games are just around the corner.
We have a couple of local multisport organizations that field travel soccer, LAX, Basketball etc. The problem is they really don't have just one complex that houses all of that. they still use community fields, gyms etc. Not many non-prof organizations have the resources to have a Camp Nou set up where soccer, ice hockey and basketball are all housed in the same complex.
On a grass or turf field you can play a few things: flag football baseball/kickball/softball ultimate frisbee volleyball badminton and more.
Sporting CP - big club in Portugal - has in addition to soccer: futsal handball volleyball rink hockey On big bad Barcelona you have: basketball futsal handball roller hockey and even e-sports. Maybe this is the reason everyone is better than US. We make it hard to play various sports but everyone else facilitates it. Kind of ironic seeing as the US is a multi-sport nation, not soccer centric like most countries. Other countries sees sport as a public good. But we just want to make money! "Show me the money!" The new USA motto
100 percent this. If you've never planned out field use for a facility (or multiple facilities for a tournament), you might not understand how big the impact can be when a just a few small dominos start falling. It's why tournaments start shaving minutes off of halftime when weather is an issue, ... Every minute counts. Adding game time can also impact your ability to have enough refs (granted, less critical at the youngest ages like the OP's son, where one ref is likely normal). Roster sizes are tough. I always stewed over large rosters (18-plus for 11v11). But one summer team where I got my wish and my son's team had 15(?) players, they played multiple games with no bench.
This will be another unpopular opinion by I would rather err on the side of having too few subs than too many. Sure for the coach its better to have more, but for the players its better to have fewer. And frankly it should be more about the players than the coaches. I have no problem playing with one man down, or even two, as long as the teams are even in skill. Usually the better team can still win with a man down or even two.
You realize that most kids at those clubs are just playing one sport, right? Barcelona's basketball players are focused on playing basketball; the handball players are just playing handball. My wife was on the ice skating team for one of the largest clubs in her home town in Europe. It was (still is) one of the biggest football clubs in the country; it also fields ice hockey, basketball, and a few other sports. One of it's crosstown rivals in football is really big in judo. Our son lived in that country for a few months, playing semi-pro lower division football for a club that's currently much bigger/better at team handball and volleyball. My wife never played football or basketball at that club--not even ice hockey although she shared the same rink with those players. Our son never set foot on the handball/volleyball/basketball court at his club even thought it's right next door to the football stadium. The money aspect--you're closer to the mark there. Another BigSoccer poster once pointed out that the reason youth soccer in America is so expensive is because there's no money in it, and I think that summarizes the issue. There's no real crossover. Players don't bounce around from one sport/team to another, it's just that the club supports several.
There's a big grass field near me. Underutilized. Has lights. Soccer mostly but Ok those are the big clubs with big revenues from their famous football club. But how about the small ones. Aren't they kind of like YMCAs, except they play futsal and we don't? They get public funds so the fees are very affordable, that's what I heard from a guy from Denmark.
I’m sure that’s true in many places at least for younger ages. But generally if you signed your kid up at a club it was to be serious about it, and focus on it.