I'm entering my B and C teams in a local U10 tournament next weekend. The two teams will be playing in the same division with 3 other average teams. I'm torn between entering each team as they currently stand, or mixing the B & C players into 2 equal teams. If I keep them separate, my B team stands a good chance of being very successful and will clearly dominate my C team when they play each other. If I mix them equally, I think it would be more for fun, they would both be competitive, but our chance of either team winning would obviously decrease. Thoughts?
I feel that one enters tournaments to win them. There are other non-league avenues for development, such as festivals and jamborees. I keep our tournaments to one a year so I don't have to be focused on results. The competitive environment thing is not bad in doses.
U-10 s/b non-result oriented. Plus I am assuming games are only 25 minutes or so (half a regular game) Keep the teams as is. You'll be surprised how hard the lower team will play vs. the higher team, and the games shouldn't be so long that the score would be that bad in either direction (that's how I've seen it in the past).
I agree in the general sense that U10 should be non-result oriented. But if that's the case then why enter them into a tournament? Why not just schedule friendlies or go to a soccer festival where scores are not kept? Geographically permitting, of course.
I don't see how it would be more fun to enter a tounament with team mates you have never played with before. Quite the opposite. Seems unnecessarily stressful to me. I don't see how players who have never played together before would be more competitive than a team that has actually played and practiced together. But then I have never seen the teams in action. When you say "my" does that mean you coach all three teams? If you coach them the same way and they use the same system, then it might be less confusing for the players to swap around.
Typical bureaucratic reaction to reform attempts. Which is the heart of the problem for USSF. Responsibility without authority is ineffective. Planning has never been the problem. Execution is the problem. The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind.
Oh, that's unfortunate. Well, for those who haven't encountered it the intent of "festivals" and "jamborees" was to travel longer distances and get the opportunity to play teams in a non-results oriented environment.Depending on the event, if scores got out of hand, you can do weird things like mix the teams up. I think when we say non-results oriented, to me at least, we apply things like equal plaaying time, rotate positions, give them an environment where they can make mistakes. In tournament play, as long as it's rare, to me it's okay to forego those things. It's probably four shortened games. Because of the frequency of games you'll probably use a long bench anyway. I don't think it destroys the learning environment, kinda like giving a kid candy infrequently will not ruin them.
Again, call it what you want. It is all the same. Older kids/divisions play in a 'tournament' while the U-10's and U-8's also are at the same sight playing in their own non-results oriented 'festival.' Frankly, the host club could care less what the event is called, as long as they are raising larges sums of money.