So my Son is 8 years old and playing in competitive soccer. I will be the first to admit that on his team of 9 he probably ranks 6th or 7th. Maybe 5th on a good day. He is disciplined, works hard, knows his game but is just one of the slower kids and not the strongest shooter. Usually plays Left or Right Back.
The Coach has had a tendency to play him less than the others and generally I am okay with that because at times he plays quite a bit. Then some things happened and I am not real sure how to approach it.
In a tournament we won our first 2 games and were an automatic lock for the finals. The 3rd game literally meant absolutely nothing. My Son's Coach decided to play the "best players" into the ground and my Son got to play all of 10 minutes of a 50 minute game in a game that meant literally nothing. I was pissed but said nothing.
Then tonight at practice the Coach handed out MVP Pins to 5 of of the 8 kids that were there and one to a kid who was practicing with us but not on our team. He said they "tried hard" the last game. The irony is my Son played most of the last game and more than just about anyone else, and one of the kids that didn't get a pin had 2 goals. So the "they tried hard" crap doesn't seem to make sense.
I thought that was a pretty shitty way to handle that situation as we had 2 subs that game, it was very hot and all the kids played their ass off and we won 7-1.
Our Coach is 22, and it's his first year coaching a team. I try to keep that in mind. I also have to keep in mind that if I piss him off he could plant my Son on the bench the rest of the season. Also with tryouts for next season coming up in a couple of weeks, I'd hate to do something to jeopardize my Son.
On the other hand, I see it as I am paying good $'s to play in this league and a dick move is a dick move.
If' I've learned anything from youth sports it's that people are ****ing crazy. I've seen worse than Pete. I've seen coaches not put 7 and 8 year old kids into games at all for the sake of winning a 3 dollar medal. It's easier said than done but until about 12 make sure the kid is having fun and make sure he is in playing the ****ing game not sitting on the bench "because he has to earn" a spot. They still believes in Santa for ****s sake. Just insane. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
If' I've learned anything from youth sports it's that people are ****ing crazy. I've seen worse than Pete. I've seen coaches not put 7 and 8 year old kids into games at all for the sake of winning a 3 dollar medal. It's easier said than done but until about 12 make sure the kid is having fun and make sure he is in playing the ****ing game not sitting on the bench "because he has to earn" a spot. They still believes in Santa for ****s sake. Just insane.
I get that argument, and sometimes it’s correct. But what a lot of people don’t get is that there are lots of kids that REALLY enjoy competing against the best and winning. And those kids happiness should count too.
The problem is when the two worlds collide. The competitive (good) kids want to win or be as competitive as they can be. Then there are the kids that just want “have fun” or join sports to hang with their friends, or because mom and dad made them.
As a coach, you have to balance the bottom of the roster kids with the “I just want to win” kids. As a parent, I have two of the latter and one of the “I’m here to have fun” kids. As a coach, I think I’ve done a good job of balancing. But I get both sides of the coin.
The kids toward the bottom of the roster (and especially their parents) get frustrated when they don’t play, if get as involved as much as the best kids. The competitive kids get frustrated when they see the crappy kids blowing games, etc. Again, their point of view counts too. It’s not just about making the bottom kids feel good.
Some 8 year olds are dreaming about Pokémon during the game. Some are literally obsessed with sports and come home from games and watch highlights on YouTube because it’s what they love. Others want to be pros, but have no clue how bad their genetics are holding them back.
The Pokémon kids wash out sometime between 8-10. The kids that love it but don’t know how bad their genetics are, hang on a lot longer, and sometimes they work themselves into relevancy.
The competitive kids usually stick with the 2-3 sports their best at and are usually the kids that end up being varsity starters, and some go past high school.
Of course there are examples of competitive kids that fizzle out, or peak early. And there are examples of kids that weren’t anything special and hit a growth spurt.
But 90% of the time, you can predict who the players are by 8-10 years old. The only question is usually which sport will be their best/favorite.
It is what it is. Sports is the one area where kids are allowed to set their own hierarchy based on their abilities, and don’t have to worry about “making sure everyone feels included”. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kcclone:
I get that argument, and sometimes it’s correct. But what a lot of people don’t get is that there are lots of kids that REALLY enjoy competing against the best and winning. And those kids happiness should count too.
The problem is when the two worlds collide. The competitive (good) kids want to win or be as competitive as they can be. Then there are the kids that just want “have fun” or join sports to hang with their friends, or because mom and dad made them.
As a coach, you have to balance the bottom of the roster kids with the “I just want to win” kids. As a parent, I have two of the latter and one of the “I’m here to have fun” kids. As a coach, I think I’ve done a good job of balancing. But I get both sides of the coin.
The kids toward the bottom of the roster (and especially their parents) get frustrated when they don’t play, if get as involved as much as the best kids. The competitive kids get frustrated when they see the crappy kids blowing games, etc. Again, their point of view counts too. It’s not just about making the bottom kids feel good.
Some 8 year olds are dreaming about Pokémon during the game. Some are literally obsessed with sports and come home from games and watch highlights on YouTube because it’s what they love. Others want to be pros, but have no clue how bad their genetics are holding them back.
The Pokémon kids wash out sometime between 8-10. The kids that love it but don’t know how bad their genetics are, hang on a lot longer, and sometimes they work themselves into relevancy.
The competitive kids usually stick with the 2-3 sports their best at and are usually the kids that end up being varsity starters, and some go past high school.
Of course there are examples of competitive kids that fizzle out, or peak early. And there are examples of kids that weren’t anything special and hit a growth spurt.
But 90% of the time, you can predict who the players are by 8-10 years old. The only question is usually which sport will be their best/favorite.
It is what it is. Sports is the one area where kids are allowed to set their own hierarchy based on their abilities, and don’t have to worry about “making sure everyone feels included”.
Yep, I get both angles for sure. The thing is if it's your kid then don't bitch about coaching and just put him in a better situation where he gets to play and perhaps be a bigger part of the team. But like i said on the other hand I've seen enough over the course of my life time you can still get lower level kids involved in certain situations and probably more frequently than what they do. I'd probably put your 90% number a little lower as in it's my experience the shorter kids tend to be more coordinated and athletic early on where as the taller kids take a bit longer but usually pass up those early bloomers by 13-14 or so. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Yep, I get both angles for sure. The thing is if it's your kid then don't bitch about coaching and just put him in a better situation where he gets to play and perhaps be a bigger part of the team. But like i said on the other hand I've seen enough over the course of my life time you can still get lower level kids involved in certain situations and probably more frequently than what they do. I'd probably put your 90% number a little lower as in it's my experience the shorter kids tend to be more coordinated and athletic early on where as the taller kids take a bit longer but usually pass up those early bloomers by 13-14 or so.
You’re definitely right about height. Height and speed are by far the two big deals in most sports.
Originally Posted by kcclone:
You’re definitely right about height. Height and speed are by far the two big deals in most sports.
Genetics are a hell of a thing.
I think soccer is an exception to the height thing, I looked at Sporting KCs roster and they average about 5'10". I looked at a couple Premier League teams and they're around 5'10" as well. The goalies seem to be a little taller. But you are sort of correct about speed. Yes, they have to have it, but it's more like agility and endurance. A mid-fielder will run about 6 miles in a game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by oldman:
I think soccer is an exception to the height thing, I looked at Sporting KCs roster and they average about 5'10". I looked at a couple Premier League teams and they're around 5'10" as well. The goalies seem to be a little taller. But you are sort of correct about speed. Yes, they have to have it, but it's more like agility and endurance. A mid-fielder will run about 6 miles in a game.
That's true about soccer and height. I look at things thru a football and basketball lens. Different sports, have different player profiles.
If you look at MLB baseball players, 80% of them are about 6'1" +/- one inch, with different positions being slightly taller or shorter. It's crazy how many of them are within a 2" range though.
Soccer makes sense because the taller you get, you start to shift the center of gravity too high, which takes away the nimbleness of their feet. But on the flip side, if you're too short, it's generally harder to cover the distance needed.
As far as speed, every thing is position specific. But all other things being equal, a mid-fielder with higher top end speed will out perform a slower mid-fielder.
Even with the endurance that is required... a guy who's top end speed is 23 mph will be faster running at 85% than a player player who's top end speed is 21 mph running at 90%.
Even for OL in football, 40 times correlate to career success and even longevity. That's why the 40 is and always will be the thing that is emphasized the most at combines. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kcclone:
That's true about soccer and height. I look at things thru a football and basketball lens. Different sports, have different player profiles.
If you look at MLB baseball players, 80% of them are about 6'1" +/- one inch, with different positions being slightly taller or shorter. It's crazy how many of them are within a 2" range though.
Soccer makes sense because the taller you get, you start to shift the center of gravity too high, which takes away the nimbleness of their feet. But on the flip side, if you're too short, it's generally harder to cover the distance needed.
As far as speed, every thing is position specific. But all other things being equal, a mid-fielder with higher top end speed will out perform a slower mid-fielder.
Even with the endurance that is required... a guy who's top end speed is 23 mph will be faster running at 85% than a player player who's top end speed is 21 mph running at 90%.
Even for OL in football, 40 times correlate to career success and even longevity. That's why the 40 is and always will be the thing that is emphasized the most at combines.
"The cream always rises to the top" as the saying goes. Generally speaking, a great athlete will find a way to be great (I know you know this, just saying). There are plenty of examples of smaller guys excelling at football, baseball and even basketball. I do agree, however, that height will certainly give you a good head start. Speed is speed. It is needed at all levels of all sports. If you're fast enough, you're playing somewhere, at least for a while. [Reply]
I'm not going to dredge through the entire thread, I read the first couple pages...
Yes, I'd meet with the coach in a setting away from the team and my son. I'd most definitely remind him he's coaching 8-year-old kids. Skill really doesn't matter at all at that point, let's be honest as fuck about that. All those kids are there to learn the game and all should get equal playing time, regardless of ability. You coach up the lesser players and around their shortcomings, not exclude them. You have a slower, less-skilled player on the field? Pair him with a faster, more-skilled player. Don't play two lesser-skilled players for 10 minutes and two higher-skilled players for 40. That's not helping these kids. Even if these kids never amount to shit in their teenage years and make traveling teams, at least they are learning the game and may appreciate it and even coach it later in life. Plus, that slow kid now could end up the fastest kid in two years.
As for the awards, they shouldn't even be allowed by the parents of the league except for a year-end participation medal or something. No trophies and no atta-boy merits. Eight years old. It's simple, really. It's not about winning at 8. Hell, little league teams at that age hardly keep score.