Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[anyudes]

I have noticed that on A teams from expensive RCL clubs at u10-u15, coaches dont move players up or down that much (even if it should happen or the reason is legitimate) because that kids parents will go absolutely berserk. The coach would rather compromise what they feels is right than to deal with the crazy parent and the political fall out & consequences for themselves.

Also, nice post EW. I agree with the purpose of the reserve team at any level. Look at what Neagle did with his reserve matches. It may not match up at the youth level but many clubs agree with the spirit of what you say.

[kameharem]

and I think you are wrong. 

Yet you haven't provided a single example for your point of view, let alone plenty. Here's a few for my side:
1. club charges A teams higher dues than other teams because they have a higher default number of practices.
2. Different club gives teams a default number of practices. Fields are very tight. Policy for allotting extra field makes use of how competitive they are. Last year perhaps the best team this club has ever had practices 4-5 times per week. Everyone else gets 2 or less.

Btw, I'd love to see your data showing how players on u12 b teams on average go to greater heights than those on u12 a teams.

Back to the original point, we don't want poorly thought out player pass restrictions, such as those suggested by thickubc, that encourage clubs to make bad choices -I.e. win in the short term by keeping the A team small, but harming development. Personally not a huge fan of player pass concept in general. Guess I'm old-fashioned and like the idea of a team being a unit with players and coaches having mutual interests. Players as fodder is a step backwards in my book.

I don't know what club you are associated to or speaking of here, it may be just in your imagination like so many of your statements, but at both of the RCL clubs my child has played with the A and B teams paid the same dues and had the same number of practices and had the same access to fields and quality coaching.  If I was at the club you describe I wouldn't want my child on the B team but I have in the past requested a move to the B team because we believed our child would recieve better coaching and more development without the win at any cost mentality.  You haven't provided any data to prove that players on the A team develop to be greater players than those who begin on the B team at younger ages either.

[Bathos]

We're just from a tiny select club, so don't know about these things, but don't the A teams usually carry a smaller roster than the B teams so that playing time is maximized?

[tripleplay]

I don't know what club you are associated to or speaking of here, it may be just in your imagination like so many of your statements, but at both of the RCL clubs my child has played with the A and B teams paid the same dues and had the same number of practices and had the same access to fields and quality coaching. 

Even when they are the same on paper, there is typically a difference in ambition and expectations - teams are not selected randomly - players and coaches are put together for a reason. According to the club, practice officially starts at 4:30 but A team players arrive at 4:10, B team players arrive at 4:20, C team players arrive at 4:30. Coaches have different ambition levels - yes the more ambitious coaches want to win which means they have to work harder and get their players to work harder.

[yote19]

Triple play is like that old song that never ends....it just keeps going around in a circle repeating itself and shortly it is just tuned out.

[ThiKuBC]

I'd hope the more ambitious coaches want to train harder so they are DEVELOPING players better....not WIN MORE! yikes.

[ThiKuBC]

ThikUBC,

While I suspect that you and I have much closer ideas on what real success is at various age groups, for the purpose of this discussion, "success" can be typified as winning, more or less.  And there was no delineated differentiation in regards to age groups.   While perhaps there should be, there has not been.

I actually have to disagree with your disagreement in terms of Euro-style rehab assignments.  Putting a player through his paces at a lower level, low stress enviroment has a lot to offer.   It can clearly benefit the player, and it can give the coach the benefit of checking over the player in a game situation where the player can be pulled without consequence if deemed wise.

Obviously, this strain of thought is rather denigrating to the B team, but then this model places the vast majority of the emphasis on the A team, the B team exists solely to benefit the A team.

Depends on the age EW.

At u18 the definition of success should be very different than the definition of success at u12.

No issue with B players moving up to A if the A team has room for a call-up. But, I definitely have issue with A players dropping down to B if the B team already had its full squad.

Just regarding your #1 point - youth soccer is not European Professional soccer. So moving A players down to "reserves" doesn't equate in regards to this discussion.

I hear ya. I think I'll just agree to disagree with ya. In a pay-to-play system this sort of thinking doesn't fly, in my opinion, even if the A and B team pay the same and train the same. Kids pay to be on a team. Yes, some movement is fine, even joint training. But never should a B player lose a spot to an A player, in my opinion, if the B team has enough players for that game.

In the end these are kids who just want to play and aren't really interested in helping "superstar on A team" develop....they want to play.

If the A and B team were FREE to play for then there'd be no issue. For example, the Sounders USSDA team. I have no issue with movement there if there were A and B, and I have no issue with a u16 player moving up and taking the spot of a u18 player.

[smoopy]

I think I'll just agree to disagree with ya. In a pay-to-play system this sort of thinking doesn't fly, in my opinion, even if the A and B team pay the same and train the same. Kids pay to be on a team. Yes, some movement is fine, even joint training. But never should a B player lose a spot to an A player, in my opinion, if the B team has enough players for that game.

In the end these are kids who just want to play and aren't really interested in helping "superstar on A team" develop....they want to play.

+1.

IMO, a coach is given a set of players for the year and that's what he/she has to work with.   It's a type of "contract" with the parents and the kids and, to bring in a new player (from A or C) to displace one of my own is breaking that contract (and insulting).

So much of this thread's conversation seems to treat kids as exchangeable parts that can be shuffled around as the club sees fit.   I wonder if this is actually happening in some clubs (which ones? not in mine!).

In fact, I wonder what the mix of posters on this thread might be: how many parents and how many  academic/think-tank/armchair theorists?

[EWSoccer64]

We're just from a tiny select club, so don't know about these things, but don't the A teams usually carry a smaller roster than the B teams so that playing time is maximized?

Actually, from what I have seen, it is normally the other way around.   The A team normally has more slots filled than the B team, if either team has less than a full roster.     That way, more parents are happy because their kids are on the A team, and the A team is better able to withstand anyone quiting or getting hurt without the hassles of transfering a player from one to the other.   And of course, it lessens the chance for the lower level team to exceed expectations.

Not saying that this is right, just the way that I have seen things work over time.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>
I hear ya. I think I'll just agree to disagree with ya. In a pay-to-play system this sort of thinking doesn't fly, in my opinion, even if the A and B team pay the same and train the same. Kids pay to be on a team. Yes, some movement is fine, even joint training. But never should a B player lose a spot to an A player, in my opinion, if the B team has enough players for that game.

In the end these are kids who just want to play and aren't really interested in helping "superstar on A team" develop....they want to play.

If the A and B team were FREE to play for then there'd be no issue. For example, the Sounders USSDA team. I have no issue with movement there if there were A and B, and I have no issue with a u16 player moving up and taking the spot of a u18 player.<<<<


As I said before, you and I are much closer in our thinking than is apparent.   Above, you are referring to a type fo social contract between the players(and parents) and the coach.  Such a social contract is indeed essential for the long term success of a team.   The issues with your points above are that it creates a situation where a B team (or lower level) player is valued by the organization just the same as an A team player, and players are respected mroe than maximizing shrot term success for the A team.  That simply is not the case in the model that some of the Big Clubs use.
    Heck, we have seen situations where the entire U-19 rosters (or near enough) of some of the Big Club teams were replaced by returning college players for State Cup, where winning the Trophy was more important than the rights of the players who played all year on those teams.   When a club has that type of attitude towards entire teams of players, it is no surprise that they view B teams as conveniences for A teamers.

[Fallfever]

In the end these are kids who just want to play and aren't really interested in helping "superstar on A team" develop....they want to play.

I agree as a general rule, but it is sometimes more complicated than that.  There are those situations where a kid or two on the B team (or whatever team) aren't committed to making it to practice or have a bad attitude, etc...   Just looking at the sweet kids sitting on the bench doesn't always tell the whole story.

That said, the above scenario is probably not the norm when A teamers play down, but brings us back to what several have said:  Its just hard to judge intent.  

My GU14 was on the B team last year and we had drama on the A team which resulted in a major commitment problem.  In the spring, they often needed players so we yielded players from the B team and drew from our district team.  It seems that this is the intent of the regulations and in 90% of the application of the player pass, this is probably the case (I hope).

[Southend soccer mom]

Many teams are set up as academy which means lots of switching between A and B. I really like that style. Not only does it motivate A players to continue performing because they have more competition for the A-spots but it also gives the hard working B-players a chance to play up. The hard part is that parents don't know when and where their kids going to play until the week before. I've seen more development out of the kids this year playing academy than in previous years. Competition is a good thing!

+1.

IMO, a coach is given a set of players for the year and that's what he/she has to work with.   It's a type of "contract" with the parents and the kids and, to bring in a new player (from A or C) to displace one of my own is breaking that contract (and insulting).

So much of this thread's conversation seems to treat kids as exchangeable parts that can be shuffled around as the club sees fit.   I wonder if this is actually happening in some clubs (which ones? not in mine!).

In fact, I wonder what the mix of posters on this thread might be: how many parents and how many  academic/think-tank/armchair theorists?

[billybuck]

This whole discussion goes back to the question, what are more important, wins and losses, or being exposed to stronger players and teams in order to improve both individually and as a team? As the years have gone by I went from reveling in our team's tournament victories, to wondering if we should have played up in order to be exposed to faster play and stronger players and get better as a result of the exposure...

[ThiKuBC]

@EW - if that happened to my u19 kid I'd be inredibly pissed. BUT, as the kid is u19 unless those families have kids playing at younger ages in the club what do they care if the u19 kid and his family are pissed at being dumped...oh wait....word of mouth.

Yes, we are close on this topic.

@FallFever - no issue with B kids moving up if there is room on the A team due to kids being unavailable there. I'd imagine that is the majority of the movement as well.

@ Southend - yes, in my u11 year we had an academy style where I adapted the rosters of the 3 teams I coached once a month (usually moved 3 up, 3 down) sort of thing so the kids got different experiences. And all 3 teams trained jointly. At u12 we continue to train jointly, but the roster movement is minimal (though the reality is I could continue to switch). The parents wanted the teams to be stable, as did my assistant coaches. And in the end, it is their money. So I picked teams for better or for worse and left it at that. But continued the joint training - academy style - and move up the B kids when there is room or the A kids down when there is room. The results have been fantastic in regards to development. We recently had a regional all-star camp where 3 teams came together with their best 5 and mine did well. 4 of my kids went to the all-star camp (1 was unavailable) and 3 were picked (one was cut from each team). But watching the camp I know I have 4-5 other players at that level for sure. So the development benefits have been superb! Sadly our results haven't been great - athleticism a major issue! Ce la vi, they will catch up over the years and the skills they are learning will make them highly competitive when it counts by u16 - they are very competitive now just not getting the W's (my tallest player is usually about average height in compared to my opposition, for example).

[kameharem]

I don't know what club you are associated to or speaking of here, it may be just in your imagination like so many of your statements, but at both of the RCL clubs my child has played with the A and B teams paid the same dues and had the same number of practices and had the same access to fields and quality coaching. 

Even when they are the same on paper, there is typically a difference in ambition and expectations - teams are not selected randomly - players and coaches are put together for a reason. According to the club, practice officially starts at 4:30 but A team players arrive at 4:10, B team players arrive at 4:20, C team players arrive at 4:30. Coaches have different ambition levels - yes the more ambitious coaches want to win which means they have to work harder and get their players to work harder.

I see what Yote is saying so this will be my last post to tell you you are full of it.  both A and B teams at our club are told to be at practice 15 minutes before the scheduled time and both teams have players there earlier than that and some that are late. your example of times they arrive is just a fantasy you pulled out of your.....sorry I'm done.

[tripleplay]

I'd hope the more ambitious coaches want to train harder so they are DEVELOPING players better....not WIN MORE! yikes.

Truth is they are the same thing, so does it even matter?

Coaches and clubs will game the rules whatever they are. That is why the rules and their consequences should be thought out. Only allow upward player pass? Consequence is that it makes the higher teams smaller. Is that a good idea? I don't think so.

[mhall]

I tend to look at it this way.  If you have an "A" team and a "B" team they should be a separate entity.  They were chosen at tryouts that way and the coach was given the team to coach.  If there is sickness or injury and there is a need for additional players that should be the only reason a kid is moved up or down from one team to the other.  If there is an agreement between a coach and a parent that a kid needs more playing time than what he is getting on the "A" team then maybe there's a swap of kids.  Otherwise, no moving of players.

[tripleplay]

I see what Yote is saying so this will be my last post to tell you you are full of it.  both A and B teams at our club are told to be at practice 15 minutes before the scheduled time and both teams have players there earlier than that and some that are late. your example of times they arrive is just a fantasy you pulled out of your.....sorry I'm done.

It was a current factual example. The coaches themselves impose the different start times, with which the players comply.

Maybe at your club players and coaches are assigned randomly and teams are all equal, but if that were the case everywhere then why would there be a thread about the appropriateness of guest players coming from higher teams? There would be no such thing as a higher team! Personally I like the fact that in my reality there are people and teams that have varying approaches to the game.

[EWSoccer64]

I tend to look at it this way.  If you have an "A" team and a "B" team they should be a separate entity.  They were chosen at tryouts that way and the coach was given the team to coach.  If there is sickness or injury and there is a need for additional players that should be the only reason a kid is moved up or down from one team to the other.  If there is an agreement between a coach and a parent that a kid needs more playing time than what he is getting on the "A" team then maybe there's a swap of kids.  Otherwise, no moving of players.

This is a more traditional, team centric view rather than a club centric view.   Here you have the players belonging to the team (and the danger of vice versa happening) instead of the more modern mantra of "the players belong to the club".   Some people think these things are empty slogans, but here is an area where we see the actual impact of the difference in philosophies.   If the players are loyal to the team, and the team is loyal to the players, then the club has less power over both.   It prevents things from being done to the benefit of the club instead of the benefit of the players.    Ergo, the modern philosophy in many clubs of not allowing teams to become real teams over the years, instead to use the players for the benefit of the club and to prevent team loyalties from building up.

Personally, in most enviroments, I am much more in favor of the teams being treated as real teams, with players bonding together, rather than it being a squad selection for the match type of situation.   But it is important to recognize why some programs feel it is more important to go the other way.

[ThiKuBC]

I'd hope the more ambitious coaches want to train harder so they are DEVELOPING players better....not WIN MORE! yikes.

Truth is they are the same thing, so does it even matter?

Coaches and clubs will game the rules whatever they are. That is why the rules and their consequences should be thought out. Only allow upward player pass? Consequence is that it makes the higher teams smaller. Is that a good idea? I don't think so.

Development=Winning. Not the same thing - particularly at the younger ages. Unless you believe "getting it to the fast kid who can score some goals"=development....the flip-side being focusing on development and accepting the team might lose at the younger ages does generally equate winning more at the elder ages....so in that vein yes, they are the same thing. But you didn't explain what you mean, so I can only assume.

Why would the the "higher" teams need to be smaller?

Let's imagine an 11v11 team. Select 16 A players and 16 B players. Generally the A and B team won't have games at the same time. Let's say the A team is down to 2 subs for whatever reason...and the B team has its full 16. Call-up one or two of the B team players so both teams have equal sized benches. If the B team had one or two subs and the A team had its full complement then send 1 or 2 A players down (as subs!) to help them out (I don't believe the A guy should start just cuz he is A - he is there to help. He should get a fair shake at playing time but otherwise is there to help).

There isn't any point in "keeping room so kids can move." Sign the kids to a team, and let them play. Regardless if the team is elite or not. All the kids are there because they want to play and it is the coaches job to develop all the players. Ideally the A and B coach work together and have a good relationship. If they don't, then the club needs to find two coaches who will. A good way to do this is say "the B coach is actually the assistant who attends all games, and runs most practices. The A coach is the head coach for BOTh teams - but then that A coach has to provide training to both teams and be available for games for the B team when possible (without killing the guy and destroying his marriage because he's away all day every Saturday!)." The A and B teams could even train jointly if there is field space (particularly useful at the younger ages if you want to encourage the B players to work hard and take an A spot the following season, as well as encourage the A players to KEEP working hard so they don't lose their spot the following season).

Anyway, it's my opinion. I understand others have a different perspective. No problem there. Clubs all run differently, and this is largely how mine runs. Once the kids get older (say u14ish) there is generally a fairly stark difference between A and B levels anyway so the crossover is minimalized and continues to do so as the kids get older....these things are mostly only an issue at the younger ages I imagine.

[Firedog]

Great discussion!  Of course I first pronounced denigrating - DE (long "e") ni (long "i") grating and couldn't figure out what it meant.  Once I pronounced it correctly the light bulb went off!!!

I personally like the idea of players moving up but only down in the case of need because of sickness or injury.  A perfect example of when players should be used on different teams worked this weekend at my older sons game, or I should say after it.  He plays U16 and their game was done and the U17's were entering the field.  Uh oh!!  Only ten players.  The coach asked for volunteers from the 16's, cards were exchanged between coaches and the game was played.  That's an example of how moving players should be used properly in my mind.

Err, what are the rules about the amount of time per day or per weekend that a player can play using the pass system?  Playing in back to back games is not exactly what many would call an appropriate use of it, even under these circumstances.

I posted the rules above.  2 matches p/weekend.  35 matches p/year.  Not saying playing back to back is good (or bad).  It's not prevented in the rules.  The gamut of experience, player age/minutes/position/fitness are all part of the common sense decision making required.  Unfortunately, common sense/judgement may be clouded by the "needs" of the requesting team.

[tripleplay]

Why would the the "higher" teams need to be smaller?

Let's imagine an 11v11 team. Select 16 A players and 16 B players.

Now imagine I run a competing club with exactly the same players. I put 13 on my A team. Why not? I can always borrow if some players can't make it.

When our A teams play, I'll have a small advantage because, being the nice guy you are, you'll be tempted to give your 14-16 players some playing time. I'll have no such temptation. When our B teams play, I'll have a big advantage. My 14-16 are going to match up against your 25-27. So even though we have the same players, you're giving me a big edge at 3 positions. I'll get better results on the field and my club will look better.

Personally I'd rather endure some "unfair" downward guest play than encourage the above.

[EWSoccer64]

Why would the the "higher" teams need to be smaller?

Let's imagine an 11v11 team. Select 16 A players and 16 B players.

Now imagine I run a competing club with exactly the same players. I put 13 on my A team. Why not? I can always borrow if some players can't make it.

When our A teams play, I'll have a small advantage because, being the nice guy you are, you'll be tempted to give your 14-16 players some playing time. I'll have no such temptation. When our B teams play, I'll have a big advantage. My 14-16 are going to match up against your 25-27. So even though we have the same players, you're giving me a big edge at 3 positions. I'll get better results on the field and my club will look better.

Personally I'd rather endure some "unfair" downward guest play than encourage the above.

OBVIOUSLY TP has never been a soccer coach.   He has no idea how chemistry works on a team. Throw players together at need, and it works just like his fantasy baseball team.  I bet he is the stats keeper on his U-12 team..........

[ThiKuBC]

I am a bit surprised you even bothered responding to TP's post.

That was just....wow.

Moving on....

[EWSoccer64]

I am a bit surprised you even bothered responding to TP's post.

That was just....wow.

Moving on....

After you have been around here for a while, you will find that TP comes out and writes outrageously stupid things that protray his total ignorance.   I still laugh about his idea to turn the club entirely over to the DoC and not have any oversight.

[ThiKuBC]

Ya, I already caught on to that.

Re: DoC getting clubs.....everyone needs a boss!

[EWSoccer64]

Ya, I already caught on to that.

Re: DoC getting clubs.....everyone needs a boss!

Down here, the IRS frowns on employees of non-profits spending too much on salaries and not having adult supervision  (non-paid board members).

[ThiKuBC]

99% of DoC's will always have their hearts in the right place, but even they will make mistakes and thus need oversight for sure. But it is the 1% that make it a requirement for the other 99%.

Even President Sarkozy has a boss!

[EWSoccer64]

99% of DoC's will always have their hearts in the right place, but even they will make mistakes and thus need oversight for sure. But it is the 1% that make it a requirement for the other 99%.

Even President Sarkozy has a boss!

I have never figured out why a real coach wanted to be burdened with budgets, fundraising, regulatory complaince, field maintenance, dealing with masses of parents, tax forms, and all the rest.   Coaching, dealing with coaches, training players, developing a curriculum, running teams, and that sort of thing is what a Coach, and a Director of Coaching should be doing.

I was once approached about being the DoC of a local club, and turned it down flat.  I like working with kids, not with forms, paperwork, accountants and beaurocrats.   (For my sins, I ended up running a small business in my "real life" so I have to deal with all of that!!! )

And you are exactly right, ThikUBC, everyone has a Boss.  When one thinks that one answers to no one, that is when real problems start!

[EWSoccer64]

[color=purpleThe way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime."][/color]

Babe Ruth.
I figured that since Triple Play thought of soccer like like his fantasy league baseball team, he might recognize The Babe.   Perhaps he can recognize the situation better now that it is put into baseball terms.