Need Guidance: 16 players for a 9v9 format

Triumph FC wrote:I don't know you ask yourself your daughter played on the team. Yes we did play 11v11 at U11 but didn't at U9 and U10 as it was 9v9
I was pointing out why coaches are still trying to get to 16 players. Some of it maybe to balance the books  $$$some of it might be because the players aren't getting the job done WINS. If a player is working hard and contributing then playing time would not be an issue regardless of the roster size.

Coach and Club Leader, thanks for the great summary of the insight and how coaches and club view things.

Often takes new parents a while to sift through all the rhetoric and sales pitches to understand the coaches are about TEAM, $$$, WINS and players are a vehicle to help them get there.  

Nothing wrong with that, as the clubs and coaches are in business.  Just don't confuse that with loyalty to players as coaches, like most people, typically act in their OWN BEST INTEREST.

Coaches are always in a pickle......when it comes to PT.

My DD is fortunate....yes shes the keeper and plays 100%....but even though she plays 100%, I too worry about the PT of others on the team.  I worry because of the team's dynamics.

We do not live in a world of endless supply of talented players for each team that gets equal PT.  The top caliber teams have a heavy advantage as compared to the other teams.

I agree that 16 on a 11v11 (U13/14) is about the right number of players....but if that number drops because of PT....then the chances of a team imploding is greatly increased and my concern peeks up.

I would bet....most parents would pay more if it meant more PT (as long as the reason why the increase in dues was presented).

Exactly. It's a two way street as well. Don't win enough games to stay in the league the parents want to be in then they leave. Don't think some of their team mates are good enough then parents leave. Let's not pretend this is all coaches and clubs fault. Coaches and clubs do what they need to get the most players because I don't see many parents taking their top players to a team that loses all the time. It's a viscous circle that will only be cured by both parties and neither will do that
I did want to add neither of our 06 teams are at 16

16 way too many for 9v9.
I would have been a little hesitant at 13. 16 would have sent me running for the hills.

Sho'Nuff wrote:

Ehlodog wrote:Coach might also keep 16 depending if there any scholarshiped players. The economics of a team for the coach with 1 or 2 scholarships might necessitate carrying more to cover the $$.

I like how somebody created a new ID to post this.  

Ha just creating a new log on coming from the boys site.... getting ready for the site merge

This take me back to an old Turf Monster post when a dad fed up with gouging and coaching he was getting at a big club here in Dallas decided to form his own independent team at very little cost with no coaching fees. He was a good coach that just wanted to do the best for his child and others that were fed up. If I remember he did this around U14 and ended up with 14 on the roster. He was a proud dad/coach because he proved he could form a team. This was the beginning of his nightmare
His split was 8 really good committed players out of 14
So let's start with cost. Because the cost was so low he ended up with players that were doing other sports and interests so their commitment level was at best average
Practice was a mess not because he couldn't coach no it was because the not so committed ones didn't always show up and when they did they didn't try hard
Games, he always had his committed 8 but was never certain who of the 6 was going to show up. Parents didn't care about playing time because he had promised everyone as much playing as possible (even if they missed practice) so his committed parents started to complain that they were working hard and were at every practice but being subbed out for players not showing up. Because he only had 14 he had to play the non committed ones because that was his pitch regardless of them showing up for practice and giving no effort.
The team won a few games in the fall but the project never survived another year as the committed parents and players were fed up with players getting to play and not showing up for practice or when they did not even working hard. The non committed players parents weren't out much at all because it hardly cost them a penny what did they care they had a cheap select team to play on! The coach vowed never again
So looking at this and saying what were the problems
Too Cheap
Not Enough Players
Too many promises of playing time from the coach
Maybe a combination of all 3 who knows. All I know it scared a coach for life because he believed he could do better than any big club out there. Had he got to 16 he might have forced the non committed parents hand but he told everyone that they were getting to play whatever
Just remember be careful what you wish for as having low numbers and losing your best 4 players the following year might mean there is no team for you DD to play on, then she might get on a team where she has to earn her playing time but has never learn how to compete just play

Playing time is a privilege not a right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-josephson/15-reason-competitive-sports-are-great-for-kids-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-winning_b_7219150.html

Triumph FC wrote:This take me back to an old Turf Monster post when a dad fed up with gouging and coaching he was getting at a big club here in Dallas decided to form his own independent team at very little cost with no coaching fees. He was a good coach that just wanted to do the best for his child and others that were fed up. If I remember he did this around U14 and ended up with 14 on the roster. He was a proud dad/coach because he proved he could form a team. This was the beginning of his nightmare
His split was 8 really good committed players out of 14
So let's start with cost. Because the cost was so low he ended up with players that were doing other sports and interests so their commitment level was at best average
Practice was a mess not because he couldn't coach no it was because the not so committed ones didn't always show up and when they did they didn't try hard
Games, he always had his committed 8 but was never certain who of the 6 was going to show up. Parents didn't care about playing time because he had promised everyone as much playing as possible (even if they missed practice) so his committed parents started to complain that they were working hard and were at every practice but being subbed out for players not showing up. Because he only had 14 he had to play the non committed ones because that was his pitch regardless of them showing up for practice and giving no effort.
The team won a few games in the fall but the project never survived another year as the committed parents and players were fed up with players getting to play and not showing up for practice or when they did not even working hard. The non committed players parents weren't out much at all because it hardly cost them a penny what did they care they had a cheap select team to play on! The coach vowed never again
So looking at this and saying what were the problems
Too Cheap
Not Enough Players
Too many promises of playing time from the coach
Maybe a combination of all 3 who knows. All I know it scared a coach for life because he believed he could do better than any big club out there. Had he got to 16 he might have forced the non committed parents hand but he told everyone that they were getting to play whatever
Just remember be careful what you wish for as having low numbers and losing your best 4 players the following year might mean there is no team for you DD to play on, then she might get on a team where she has to earn her playing time but has never learn how to compete just play

Sounds like he should have signed 14 committed players instead of just 8.

Curious with all these new leagues that are being thrown around and the talk that great teams need only play great teams for development, what the dues implications will end up being since the soccer world is about money. DA not withstanding of course. Certain things will need to get paid for and certain "Elite" names cost most $. Any thoughts?

SocDad wrote:Coaches are always in a pickle......when it comes to PT.

My DD is fortunate....yes shes the keeper and plays 100%....but even though she plays 100%, I too worry about the PT of others on the team.  I worry because of the team's dynamics.

We do not live in a world of endless supply of talented players for each team that gets equal PT.  The top caliber teams have a heavy advantage as compared to the other teams.

I agree that 16 on a 11v11 (U13/14) is about the right number of players....but if that number drops because of PT....then the chances of a team imploding is greatly increased and my concern peeks up.

I would bet....most parents would pay more if it meant more PT (as long as the reason why the increase in dues was presented).

With 16 players on the roster, other than the full-time goalkeeper, I doubt many of the kids are overly thrilled with playtime.  Only a few kids on the squad might say they're completely happy.  Most of them though seem to share the exact same exasperated looks on their faces when they're called off for subbing.

How many girls will leave or stay?  I have no idea.  If the team implodes, I suspect that limited playing time for most of the kids would be a sticking point.  If we stay, we'd be resigning with a coach that's already proven he's willing to sign 16 players for a 9-player field.  (Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.)

It was mentioned in another post that the 16th player might be bringing something to the team that didn't already exist.  That's fair but, honestly, it doesn't seem to be the case.  This player blends in and seems to play very similar to the others.  Regardless... If the coach knew he needed something more from his team, why not instead train some (or all) of the existing 15 to fill that need instead of recruiting for it?  I know I, as a customer, would prefer to see the coach improving my DD instead of just looking externally.

SWINGIT!! wrote:16 way too many for 9v9.
I would have been a little hesitant at 13. 16 would have sent me running for the hills.

This ^^^^^

Triumph FC wrote:So should coaches now take a pay cut, raise the fees for parents or have clubs cover the deficit? You decide what you think is best
Cut Coaches pay........ most of the good ones won't coach that age group then
Raise parents fees.......... parents complain about the rising cost of select soccer.
Club pay the balance.........so parents complain about the rising cost of select soccer as clubs raise the prices.

By that logic, why would any good coach want to coach the U-Littles? It's a lot more games on the weekends than it used to be.

Sho'Nuff wrote:

Triumph FC wrote:So should coaches now take a pay cut, raise the fees for parents or have clubs cover the deficit? You decide what you think is best
Cut Coaches pay........ most of the good ones won't coach that age group then
Raise parents fees.......... parents complain about the rising cost of select soccer.
Club pay the balance.........so parents complain about the rising cost of select soccer as clubs raise the prices.

By that logic, why would any good coach want to coach the U-Littles? It's a lot more games on the weekends than it used to be.

Because when you sign 16 kids you make MO money. It's not about long term development to some. It's just about the money and u little has newer-naive parents that are easier to fleece.  The "good coach's" aren't usually the ones packing a team with as many as they can and want to take a team thru hs. Too many ntx coaches trying to "make" for a payday.

We just added 1-2 kids on our team (not sure if they both officially signed), putting us at 15. Neither are great soccer players right now, but I do see the potential in one for sure. Play time is frustrating for sure. My child usually plays the majority of the game, as do most the starters usually. Typically, he may sit for 5-10 minutes...The other kids get anywhere from a minute or two to 20 min of the game. We haven't had any games since we added more players...will definitely be interesting...

I'd honestly rather pay more and have less kids if money is the issue. 100%. Why sign kids that are only going to ride the bench?

melashbrew wrote:. Why sign kids that are only going to ride the bench?

Team thinking: money, and potential. If you can grab an average kid with potential, and get them training with your group, the upside is worth the spot. An injury, or someone leaves at signing,doesn't hurt as much because you have already brought the kid along.

melashbrew wrote:We just added 1-2 kids on our team (not sure if they both officially signed), putting us at 15. Neither are great soccer players right now, but I do see the potential in one for sure. Play time is frustrating for sure. My child usually plays the majority of the game, as do most the starters usually. Typically, he may sit for 5-10 minutes...The other kids get anywhere from a minute or two to 20 min of the game. We haven't had any games since we added more players...will definitely be interesting...

I'd honestly rather pay more and have less kids if money is the issue. 100%. Why sign kids that are only going to ride the bench?

Couple reasons to do this

1. Use the money of new kids to cover scholarships
2. Earn more as a coach
3. The new kid may have an older/younger sibling the coach wants to keep or recruit for his/her other teams
4. coach may actually see potential.... but probably its 1,2, or 3

Ehlodog wrote:

melashbrew wrote:We just added 1-2 kids on our team (not sure if they both officially signed), putting us at 15. Neither are great soccer players right now, but I do see the potential in one for sure. Play time is frustrating for sure. My child usually plays the majority of the game, as do most the starters usually. Typically, he may sit for 5-10 minutes...The other kids get anywhere from a minute or two to 20 min of the game. We haven't had any games since we added more players...will definitely be interesting...

I'd honestly rather pay more and have less kids if money is the issue. 100%. Why sign kids that are only going to ride the bench?

Couple reasons to do this

1. Use the money of new kids to cover scholarships
2. Earn more as a coach
3. The new kid may have an older/younger sibling the coach wants to keep or recruit for his/her other teams
4. coach may actually see potential.... but probably its 1,2, or 3

So what you are saying is . . .

1. $
2. $
3. $
4. potential, but probably not


man, you are cynical

SickofSilliness wrote:


man, you are cynical

Maybe... but i am wrong? By the way the new kids were described I don't think I am.... If we have a Pay to Play system lets not get mad at the economics, coaches are trying to coach & develop kids but what keeps food on the table (or in some cases happy spouses) is that they need to make money. I don't fault them it what it is....

My DD plays in LH and gets 50% playing time, as do all of the other kids except two. Should I get loco with the coach and demand 90% playing time?

Soccertard - Yes.

soccertard wrote:My DD plays in LH and gets 50% playing time, as do all of the other kids except two.  Should I get loco with the coach and demand 90% playing time?

Yes, and video the whole thing. Then post here so we can all review.

Only if youare ok with the development and playing time you are getting for your money. Its a value issue, what kind of service are you willing to pay for. If 2-3k per year for 50% playing time is of value then dont say anything to coach....

Just curious, does the new player joined later pay the same due as other players joined at the beginning?

Ehlodog wrote:

melashbrew wrote:We just added 1-2 kids on our team (not sure if they both officially signed), putting us at 15. Neither are great soccer players right now, but I do see the potential in one for sure. Play time is frustrating for sure. My child usually plays the majority of the game, as do most the starters usually. Typically, he may sit for 5-10 minutes...The other kids get anywhere from a minute or two to 20 min of the game. We haven't had any games since we added more players...will definitely be interesting...

I'd honestly rather pay more and have less kids if money is the issue. 100%. Why sign kids that are only going to ride the bench?

Couple reasons to do this

1. Use the money of new kids to cover scholarships
2. Earn more as a coach
3. The new kid may have an older/younger sibling the coach wants to keep or recruit for his/her other teams
4. coach may actually see potential.... but probably its 1,2, or 3

The older sibling factor will definitely cause coaching decisions that make you scratch your head!

soccertard wrote:My DD plays in LH and gets 50% playing time, as do all of the other kids except two.  Should I get loco with the coach and demand 90% playing time?

Before your DD joined the team, before your family signed the contract and made the financial commitment, did your DD's coach commit to a certain amount of playtime for your DD?  Was that clearly articulated commitment by the coach an important part of your family's decision making before selecting this team instead of another?