Lh going to roster of 18?

CBTeamworks wrote:I agree that if a kid is 16-18 on a roster that she could benefit from more playing time on a less competitive team in order to aid development. However if the kid is in the rotation in the 12-15 position in terms of playing time then instead of jumping teams it's an opportunity to motivate the kid to improve to the point that she's in the starting lineup. This assumes that the coach is reasonable, has an open mind about all the players, continually re-evaluates the players and doesn't just go with what was true on the first day of the season.

+1

CBTeamworks wrote:I agree that if a kid is 16-18 on a roster that she could benefit from more playing time on a less competitive team in order to aid development. However if the kid is in the rotation in the 12-15 position in terms of playing time then instead of jumping teams it's an opportunity to motivate the kid to improve to the point that she's in the starting lineup. This assumes that the coach is reasonable, has an open mind about all the players, continually re-evaluates the players and doesn't just go with what was true on the first day of the season.

You said it best....."Being in the Rotation of 12-15".  I personally think the rotation stops at 14th (or 3 players).  its when you get 15th-18th spot is when you need to move on.

Now we are talking about U11/U12.  Of course as they age.....the need to have more becomes more apparent.

I think most teams at all ages rotate more than only 3 players per game. Almost all rotate in at least 2 wingers per game alone. But obviously each team is different.

There will always be players that are 15-18 on a roster. Instead of looking for green pastors try working hard getting extra help and improving to earn more time on the pitch.

Zizou wrote:There will always be players that are 15-18 on a roster. Instead of looking for green pastors try working hard getting extra help and improving to earn more time on the pitch.

I agree with this whole heartily......But sometimes, at that particular moment in time, A ball player needs to be send down to the minors...to get some more Time to develop and PT...then try again later to move up.

Zizou wrote:Instead of looking for green pastors...

What's wrong with Green Pastors...as long as they are preaching the truth that is ;-)

Zizou wrote:There will always be players that are 15-18 on a roster. Instead of looking for green pastors try working hard getting extra help and improving to earn more time on the pitch.

That is sorta like communism.  It sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work IRL.  It could take a year or two of excelling to change most coaches opinion of their players.  Changing to a team where your child is perceived differently changes everything, including, usually, the child's confidence and performance.  My $0.02.

RightWingDad wrote:

Zizou wrote:Instead of looking for green pastors...

What's wrong with Green Pastors...as long as they are preaching the truth that is ;-)

Are they the ones that pastor those Martian churches?

All kids are different. If they're not happy and their passion for the game is at risk then do something that helps that passion and enjoyment of the game. It may mean dropping down a level or to a team that has greater need for her talents. There's no one right answer. If her goals are to play at the highest level then she may need to stay and fight her way out of her situation while practicing against better players.

Let's also not forget that these are soon to be 6th graders so there's no hurry yet. Another thing to remember is that kids have maturity spurts both and have spurts in development as well as plateaus. One step up in development followed by plateau. We need to be patient as parents during the plateaus or else risk the kid losing their passion. Remember that soccer is a marathon. I want us as parents to remember why we have our kids in soccer. Is it for a potential scholarship (for some it is, for most it isn't) or learning how to excel at something through hard work?

From everything already expressed very well by other folks, I summarize as below. Add your thoughts if I missed any.

18 Roster:

Keeps it consistent across leagues, otherwise team that made LH from PPL or AL(already have 18 roster) may have to get rid of players if not for 18 roster.

More kids on roster, is more money for the coaches. Always a motivation.

Deep bench - protects the team/coach against injuries if any during the season. Is 18 the right answer? Or is that too many?

If your coach uses CPP and your DDis 14-18 ranked girl in the team, it may be harder for your DD to get minutes. CPP situation may have more impact if you are low ranked team for a mega club (LP, solar, FCD etc..), I am assuming CPP is usually misused in lower ranking teams to gain advantage than in say D1 teams.

If playing time is your #1 priority, think very hard in joining the team if your kid is 14-18. It is debatable this should be your primary concern.  It is expected 14-18 ranked kids will not get lot of minutes. If you know that going in, don't complain later.  

If your daughter is ranked 14-18, another option is to work hard or build skills to earn minutes.  DD may sit on the bench for long stretches. It is possible year may pass by to change coaches opinion of the DD. It may not be an easy process either.  It is crucial coach tells what he sees before the player signs a contract. This is where it is very tricky, coach may tell you stuff, but seeing it in the field in action of what he does during the game could be totally different thing. Even the well meaning coach could possibly do different things under pressure. I do not think any coach will tell you exactly how long your DD will be on field.  At the same time, you do not want to see your DD struggle on the filed is she is not ready for the team either.

Playing on a team, where your DD gets lot of minutes as she is way better skilled or athletic is not good either.  Your DD skills are not necessarily improving faster surrounded by less skilled or athletic players.

What if you love the talent level on the team, and think your border line kid will gain more by training with the team? There is a possibility of sitting on the bench for more time than DD is used to. There is also a possibility that DD would get better, hopefully lot better.  Keep in mind every one around her in the team are improving as well. So by the end of the year she may still not be a good fit for the current team if she does not improve drastically, but could very well be a good fit on a comparable team. If that happens, your DD came out okay with that experience, in spite of not getting enough game playing time. Look at the long term goal for your kid, is playing at the highest level is your daughter's priority?  If it is, you may have to sacrifice playing time today to become better player tomorrow. In that journey, you would need a great coach who will be honest with you and your DD. This is applicable at every level of soccer whether it is AL, PPL, LH or national level. There are very few coaches who do that.

If you are new kid in the team, how do you know what to expect?  Playing time, where does your DD rank in the team? even what position she will end up playing?  What strategy do you use to find out from coach? Some coaches are very tight lipped, some are very forthcoming, some are intentionally vague.  Coaches may be protecting themselves from the nasty parents they have seen from the past, but makes it hard for the rest of the good folks. Lot of playing time is great, No time is horrible, some meaningful time is mandatory. What is meaningful time?  10-15 minutes per half? Is that meaningful. I am thinking it probably is, if your DD is ranked 14-18. What do you all think?

One has  to weigh options to see which one works better. there is no perfect solution. Whatever is the close to  the best solution;  go for it with the limited information you may have and make the best decision at that time, and see what happens. You will never have 100% information you need to make that decision.  Do not worry or think what does the other parent or DDs friend think about the decision. Do what is best for your kid. Help the kid make a best decision.

I've heard it on good report that several of the top teams will actually be rostering 18. I don't necessarily have a problem with a team doing that, but I do question it from a player/parent perspective in that if the player is the #15-18 range on a roster, how much benefit can be derived from that? I understand the value in being able to practice regularly against higher level players, but if game play is more important to development, which is what I consistently read and hear, how much development can happen when spending the majority of time on the bench? And does one really think (or believe the sales hype) that a coach will actually dole out playing time equitably? Even if a well meaning coach attempted to do that the minutes would have to come from somewhere. And do you think it will sit well with the key players on the team if their minutes are reduced considerably to benefit the lower end roster players? I don't quite understand the logic of being on the end of the bench on a top team and hardly getting to play when you can still be on a very good team and be a heavy rotation player (or perhaps even a starter due to positional situations). I think there maybe a false hope that some have in believing that once a player gets on that team they'll prove themselves "worthy" and "earn" more playing time and then when that doesn't happen it's early release time or a wasted season just to start the shuffle all over again next year. I understand the desire to win, but at this age what good does it do to be on a team that wins all their games if the kid hardly gets to play? I guess there is some value in those bragging rights though.

KnKsDad wrote:I've heard it on good report that several of the top teams will actually be rostering 18. I don't necessarily have a problem with a team doing that, but I do question it from a player/parent perspective in that if the player is the #15-18 range on a roster, how much benefit can be derived from that? I understand the value in being able to practice regularly against higher level players, but if game play is more important to development, which is what I consistently read and hear, how much development can happen when spending the majority of time on the bench? And does one really think (or believe the sales hype) that a coach will actually dole out playing time equitably? Even if a well meaning coach attempted to do that the minutes would have to come from somewhere. And do you think it will sit well with the key players on the team if their minutes are reduced considerably to benefit the lower end roster players? I don't quite understand the logic of being on the end of the bench on a top team and hardly getting to play when you can still be on a very good team and be a heavy rotation player (or perhaps even a starter due to positional situations). I think there maybe a false hope that some have in believing that once a player gets on that team they'll prove themselves "worthy" and "earn" more playing time and then when that doesn't happen it's early release time or a wasted season just to start the shuffle all over again next year. I understand the desire to win, but at this age what good does it do to be on a team that wins all their games if the kid hardly gets to play? I guess there is some value in those bragging rights though.

"Mr. Madison, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

I believe most people see the light whether top or weak player.  The coaches\clubs see the extra 6K in their pockets.   No matter what it will disappoint people.

So there's no value in teaching a kid to complete and earn playing time? No value in having her learn under a good coach on a top team with skilled girls?

ElClassico wrote:So there's no value in teaching a kid to complete and earn playing time? No value in having her learn under a good coach on a top team with skilled girls?

If your kid was a starter and had to keep earning their way into that role, yes. I agree. However, if after an entire season, your kid rides the bench and realistically has no shot at starting, no. See you!! I'll take my 3K and my dd and place her in a better situation where she can start and continue developing. If I want her to watch soccer, I'll buy an 80 TV for 3K and let her watch. JMO

Barca wrote:

ElClassico wrote:So there's no value in teaching a kid to complete and earn playing time? No value in having her learn under a good coach on a top team with skilled girls?

If your kid was a starter and had to keep earning their way into that role, yes. I agree. However, if after an entire season, your kid rides the bench and realistically has no shot at starting, no. See you!! I'll take my 3K and my dd and place her in a better situation where she can start and continue developing. If I want her to watch soccer, I'll buy an 80 TV for 3K and let her watch. JMO

Yes in that case I agree because three things are happening, all bad. 1. The coach picked his starters and is refusing to change his mind. 2. Your DD isn't improving. or 3. Your DD simply isn't good enough at that point for that level.

ElClassico wrote:So there's no value in teaching a kid to complete and earn playing time? No value in having her learn under a good coach on a top team with skilled girls?

"I understand the value in being able to practice regularly against higher level players, but if game play is more important to development, which is what I consistently read and hear, how much development can happen when spending the majority of time on the bench?"

Kinda what I said. So what is your point? I never mentioned anything about coaching, but the one inference you make that I'll contend with is one about a good coach with a top team. Just because it's a top team doesn't necessarily mean that it's a better coach.

KnKsDad wrote:

ElClassico wrote:So there's no value in teaching a kid to complete and earn playing time? No value in having her learn under a good coach on a top team with skilled girls?

"I understand the value in being able to practice regularly against higher level players, but if game play is more important to development, which is what I consistently read and hear, how much development can happen when spending the majority of time on the bench?"

Kinda what I said. So what is your point? I never mentioned anything about coaching, but the one inference you make that I'll contend with is one about a good coach with a top team. Just because it's a top team doesn't necessarily mean that it's a better coach.

If you're on a "top team" with a bad coach then that's a whole different discusion. I was assuming a good coach was part of this equation. Why sit on he bench for NTX's version of Stoke City?

Gameplay is more important to the development of a parents ego. I'm not sure it's absolutely more important to the kids development. Confidence, maybe.

ElClassico wrote:

KnKsDad wrote:

ElClassico wrote:So there's no value in teaching a kid to complete and earn playing time? No value in having her learn under a good coach on a top team with skilled girls?

"I understand the value in being able to practice regularly against higher level players, but if game play is more important to development, which is what I consistently read and hear, how much development can happen when spending the majority of time on the bench?"

Kinda what I said. So what is your point? I never mentioned anything about coaching, but the one inference you make that I'll contend with is one about a good coach with a top team. Just because it's a top team doesn't necessarily mean that it's a better coach.

If you're on a "top team" with a bad coach then that's a whole different discusion. I was assuming a good coach was part of this equation. Why sit on he bench for NTX's version of Stoke City?

I'm not that familiar with Stoke City, but assume they have a good coach which is why you made the reference since we are assuming a good coach is part of the equation. The point is not sitting on the bench for NTX version of Stoke City, but getting to play say 50% of the time as opposed to sitting the bench 80% of the time on the NTX version of Chelsea.

Here you go 04's I will repost my entry from 00's.  Parents pay attention because if you can make an honest assessment of your child and they are 14-22 on a roster do something before its too late! (If you feel you can not assess your child ask a trusted friend, one who will not BS you).

"With Rosters of 22, 18, 16 this is a simple decision for me and many other parents out there. If your child is not in the top 10-11 players on a team or at least 12-13 talent wise, you should be looking to find a new team (PERIOD).... BUT Oh I like the kids, Oh I like the Coach and the families, Oh I'm comfortable here. Once a kid gets over 14 if they are not playing the majority of the game (35-45+ minutes) it is your job, NAH! DUTY as a parent to step in with a reality check and make a big boy, big girl decision and find your child the correct environment. If your child is a top 10 on any team, who cares if its DIII or PPL3 this scenario rarely if ever will be an issue."  

I will add this point for the parents of the SUPERSTARS:  IF YOU ARE HAPPY! The only reason you should look for a more competitive or higher ranked team is if your child is a DOMINANT top 1-3 players and looks like Messi playing against Rec kids.  BEWARE THE GRASS IS OFTEN BROWN ON THIS SIDE OF THE FENCE, THE PITCH IS ROUGH, THE KIDS ON THESE TOP TEAMS ARE SOMETIMES ALL SUPERSTARS WHO WILL CLEAT YOUR BABY BEFORE THEY GIVE UP A MINUTE OF PLAY TO THE NEW KID! Pursuit of Happiness.........and Legendary Futbol God Status with CAUTION!