# Ideal roster size



## Surf Zombie (Jul 14, 2020)

Here’s an actual soccer topic. What’s the ideal roster size by age?

7v7 - U9 and U10
9v9 - U11 and U12

11v11- 

U13 (70 minute games)
U14-U16  (80 minute games) 
U17 + (90 minute games)


----------



## Surf Zombie (Jul 14, 2020)

At 7 v. 7 my D’s team had 11.
At 9 v. 9 had 13 or 14 
U13 had 15 with one keeper. 
U14 going to 17 with 2 keepers. 

That sound about right?


----------



## Timan (Jul 14, 2020)

7v7 - 10: Equal playing time. No full time GK.
9v9 - 12 to14: GK and 2-3 players play full minutes. Every one play at least 50%.
11v11 - 16: GK and 4-5 players play full minutes. Starters play 60 to 75%. Every one play at least 40%.


----------



## Eagle33 (Jul 15, 2020)

Timan said:


> 7v7 - 10: Equal playing time. No full time GK.
> 9v9 - 12 to14: GK and 2-3 players play full minutes. Every one play at least 50%.
> 11v11 - 16: GK and 4-5 players play full minutes. Starters play 60 to 75%. Every one play at least 40%.


In a perfect world it would be really nice and your absolutely on point, however in a normal So Cal world (pre-COVID) it would be very difficult. 
Players get sick, injured, parents take them on trips in the middle of the season. Once they go to HS, they have Sat school or MUN or some other event.
More realistic numbers would be:
7v7 - 12: No full time GK - agree with that 00%
9v9 - 14: Still No full time GK
11v11 - 18: 2 goalkeepers and 16 field players. Both goalkeepers play on the field when not in goal.


----------



## watfly (Jul 15, 2020)

In addition to roster size I think its very important for the coach to be upfront of the playing time associated with the roster spots.  They also need to be upfront in regards to the roster being fixed or whether they plan to or might add players in the future.  By upfront, I mean before the parents writes the first check to the club.  I see too many times that a coach takes a kid, with no intent of playing the kid just to fill what he or she believes is the ideal roster size.

IMHO 18 kids is too many for 11v11 except maybe for some of the olders where injuries are common.  I'd rather see 16 solid kids and risk being a little shorthanded on subs on occasion, than have 7 subs that have to be integrated throughout the game.  I believe it interrupts the flow of the team and chemistry of the players with 7 subs.  I'm OK with 18 if the coach is honest about roster spots 17-18 not seeing the field much unless they show improvement over the other players.


----------



## Timan (Jul 15, 2020)

I prefer to 16 for 11v11, but my son's team has 18.
What happened was couple of players could not play or played less than 5 minutes at the game of all 18 players showed up. Obviously, 7 subs were too much. 
If many got injured, or absent whatever reason, I think coach just need to invite guest players from lower tier team or younger age team in the club.
It is "pay to play", but generally speaking, players with "financial aid" play relatively longer time, since only good players can get the "financial aid" in the top team of the older age group. So, our case, two full paid stay bench almost all the time, and three players with "financial aid" play full minutes. It seems like the families of the two bench players donate their money for the "financial aid". I don't blame good players with financial aid playing longer time, but I think full paid players should play reasonable minutes at the "pay to play" model. I think the club should manage the roster size for everyone to play reasonable minutes even in the older age group. Many people says "Look at pro or college. Sub players might not play. It is common for high competitive environment." But they are not in "pay to play". If the coach believes the players are behind and he would not like to give them playing time, do not add them in the roster at the first place.


----------



## Eagle33 (Jul 15, 2020)

Timan said:


> I prefer to 16 for 11v11, but my son's team has 18.
> What happened was couple of players could not play or played less than 5 minutes at the game of all 18 players showed up. Obviously, 7 subs were too much.
> If many got injured, or absent whatever reason, I think coach just need to invite guest players from lower tier team or younger age team in the club.
> It is "pay to play", but generally speaking, players with "financial aid" play relatively longer time, since only good players can get the "financial aid" in the top team of the older age group. So, our case, two full paid stay bench almost all the time, and three players with "financial aid" play full minutes. It seems like the families of the two bench players donate their money for the "financial aid". I don't blame good players with financial aid playing longer time, but I think full paid players should play reasonable minutes at the "pay to play" model. I think the club should manage the roster size for everyone to play reasonable minutes even in the older age group. Many people says "Look at pro or college. Sub players might not play. It is common for high competitive environment." But they are not in "pay to play". If the coach believes the players are behind and he would not like to give them playing time, do not add them in the roster at the first place.


You are opening a big can of worms taking into consideration pay-to-play, scholarship etc into player number equation.
Just talking about number of players... Any good coach knows how to spread out time for each player, not only on 1 game basis, but throughout the whole season for the younger age group. 
For older ages there is nothing wrong with players earning their starting spot, otherwise there is recreational soccer option.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 15, 2020)

Eagle33 said:


> You are opening a big can of worms taking into consideration pay-to-play, scholarship etc into player number equation.
> Just talking about number of players... Any good coach knows how to spread out time for each player, not only on 1 game basis, but throughout the whole season for the younger age group.
> For older ages there is nothing wrong with players earning their starting spot, otherwise there is recreational soccer option.


Even for olders, I’m not looking for a team that only plays the top kids.  I have no problem with cuts, but don’t put someone on the team who isn’t good enough to put on the field.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 15, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Even for olders, I’m not looking for a team that only plays the top kids.  I have no problem with cuts, but don’t put someone on the team who isn’t good enough to put on the field.


and right there that's it. If a kid is not strong enough to play for a team, don't add them. Yes, I know it's $'s when you add a player but as a coach it causes you playing time headaches and from a players' perspective, it's simply unfair. If someone tries out and they are not at the required standard for your team, don't add them and smile about the $'s...point them in the direction of another team that is likely a better fit. Simple enough.

I'll hold my hands up; I was wrong about roster sizes years ago when I started in club (for olders anyway). I thought 16 was enough for 11v11 as I wanted to maximize playing time but the reality for teams of high school age is that injuries mean you will lose players during the season, that's almost a certainty. Having a bigger roster is necessary for older teams IMO. Yes, you still want to get all players as much playing time as possible but you also want to make sure you don't end up playing games with 10 players (as happened to us a few times and it's embarrassing). As with everything, it's about finding the balance.


----------



## notintheface (Jul 15, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> If a kid is not strong enough to play for a team, don't add them.


Is that always true, though? A kid with a work ethic can punch their way up, especially if they work on fitting into a coach's system. Brayden may not be able to hit that cross today, but even as the 18th player they can get better faster when they're scrimmaging against their peers. Will they improve as quickly playing for the flight 3 or bronze team?


----------



## dad4 (Jul 15, 2020)

notintheface said:


> Is that always true, though? A kid with a work ethic can punch their way up, especially if they work on fitting into a coach's system. Brayden may not be able to hit that cross today, but even as the 18th player they can get better faster when they're scrimmaging against their peers. Will they improve as quickly playing for the flight 3 or bronze team?


If you want to make a long term bet on work ethic, that’s fine.  

Part of the ante for that bet is accepting a loss or two early in the season as he makes mistakes in real games.

I don’t think he joined the team just for the scrimmages.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 15, 2020)

notintheface said:


> Is that always true, though? A kid with a work ethic can punch their way up, especially if they work on fitting into a coach's system. Brayden may not be able to hit that cross today, but even as the 18th player they can get better faster when they're scrimmaging against their peers. Will they improve as quickly playing for the flight 3 or bronze team?


I understand what you are saying but that wasn't my point. I will always invest time and patience into developing any player but my point was this; if they are clearly not at the level for the team, don't add them to 'fill a spot' and bring in some cash. It happens a lot, we all know that and we also know what happens 95% of the time; the kid hardly plays and their time is wasted.


----------



## Futbol2dmaxxx (Jul 15, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> I understand what you are saying but that wasn't my point. I will always invest time and patience into developing any player but my point was this; if they are clearly not at the level for the team, don't add them to 'fill a spot' and bring in some cash. It happens a lot, we all know that and we also know what happens 95% of the time; the kid hardly plays and their time is wasted.


That was the issue in my sons 2011 team. The team was a flight 1 team but since they only had 8 plus full time goalie (parents was force to have he’s kid play goalie) they filled in spot with one kid who unbalance the team when it came it to game time and another who was too young(2012) to be playing up a year. Just to fill spots , you’re right if they can’t be at the level of the team why fill that spot. Work with what you have. Player need to learn to work hard in practice and not think they can just play because their parents paid and same goes for the parents. I just started coaching this last year flight 3 team. I tell the parents straight out your son has to work hard no positions are set no players are guaranteed full playing time. Yes developing is key but if the player/s bring the level of the team down. The players need to work hard in order to be set to play a game. Kids get frustrated at times when a player Can’t keep up at a certain level. The team moral goes down and they just give up.


----------



## MacDre (Jul 16, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Even for olders, I’m not looking for a team that only plays the top kids.  I have no problem with cuts, but don’t put someone on the team who isn’t good enough to put on the field.


How does one determine if a kid is good enough?  I’m trying to get into US soccer but it’s hard.  Most games at the MLS/NWSL level are overly physical and lack skill.  The lack of skill is even more prominent in the youth game.  The majority of the games I see consist of someone booting the ball downfield and then a foot race ensues.

So are the good kids that you are referring just the most physical?  Again, I don’t see a lot of skill so couldn’t the “lower level” kids just work on their conditioning to come up to speed?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Jul 16, 2020)

There have been times that bubble kid was added and there may be a good reason for it.  The kid truly is a bubble player and has a much better chance of improving when he/she trains with the 1st team 3 days a week, etc.  Perhaps the 2nd team is dying and there's that 1 remaining player that has been loyal and/or works hard... the club wants to keep them because they see potential, etc.

But the coach has to have a very candid conversation with the family.  There has to be a 'signing off' on the process and I've actually seen that work.  I don't think you can do it with 18-20 on the roster, though, because you've already got too many players not getting minutes unless there's an ACL or menstrual pandemic.  I watched a girl go from "B" team to National camp invites in a little over 2 seasons.  Incredible work rate and natural ability... but it happened.


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Jul 16, 2020)

My DD's team had 16 last year, and we were down to 12 by the end of the year due to injuries.  Good for the parents but tough on the kids at times.  These days it seems every sister team plays in a different league, so borrowing players might be more difficult.  Not sure if ECNL and ECRL can share players without dual rostering them early on, but you certainly can't borrow/loan players from/to the SCDSL sister team.

Our first coach (8v8 with 10 kids) spelled out the playing time rules at the first parents' meeting:
-Everyone plays in league games.  At least 50% playing time.
-Everyone plays in tournament group games.  At least 50% playing time.
-Everyone plays in tournament playoff games.  No guarantee on % of playing time.
-State Cup:  100% coach's discretion.

Not everyone agrees with every rule.  But as long as the coach is transparent, it's all good.


----------



## Eagle33 (Jul 16, 2020)

Messi>CR7 said:


> Not everyone agrees with every rule.  But as long as the coach is transparent, it's all good.


This right here IS THE KEY to any roster size


----------



## dad4 (Jul 16, 2020)

Futbol2dmaxxx said:


> That was the issue in my sons 2011 team. The team was a flight 1 team but since they only had 8 plus full time goalie (parents was force to have he’s kid play goalie) they filled in spot with one kid who unbalance the team when it came it to game time and another who was too young(2012) to be playing up a year. Just to fill spots , you’re right if they can’t be at the level of the team why fill that spot. Work with what you have. Player need to learn to work hard in practice and not think they can just play because their parents paid and same goes for the parents. I just started coaching this last year flight 3 team. I tell the parents straight out your son has to work hard no positions are set no players are guaranteed full playing time. Yes developing is key but if the player/s bring the level of the team down. The players need to work hard in order to be set to play a game. Kids get frustrated at times when a player Can’t keep up at a certain level. The team moral goes down and they just give up.


Weak players bring the level of the game down.  True enough, but are we talking about Bundesliga or 8 year old kids?

I know coaches will tell parents “no guaranteed playing time”.   

How often does a coach have the stones to add “and right now, your son isn’t good enough.”? 

 Almost never.  @Messi>CR7 had it right.  Honesty is key.


----------



## tjinaz (Jul 17, 2020)

Eagle33 said:


> In a perfect world it would be really nice and your absolutely on point, however in a normal So Cal world (pre-COVID) it would be very difficult.
> Players get sick, injured, parents take them on trips in the middle of the season. Once they go to HS, they have Sat school or MUN or some other event.
> More realistic numbers would be:
> 7v7 - 12: No full time GK - agree with that 00%
> ...


I like this but not sure 16 is enough.  Have seen Girls u14 and up take multiple ACL injuries in a season and then as players play more minutes they become susceptible.  One team last year had 4 girls all out for the season with ACL.   With a team of 16 that leaves one sub in 11v11.   I would say boost that to 17 or 18 as the games and seasons get longer or have a semi permanent set of players to borrow.


----------



## Anon9 (Jul 17, 2020)

tjinaz said:


> I like this but not sure 16 is enough.  Have seen Girls u14 and up take multiple ACL injuries in a season and then as players play more minutes they become susceptible.  One team last year had 4 girls all out for the season with ACL.   With a team of 16 that leaves one sub in 11v11.   I would say boost that to 17 or 18 as the games and seasons get longer or have a semi permanent set of players to borrow.


It really depends. If you have a second team for the same age group, it is better to carry less. Especially if you are adding just for numbers, and not players that could help the team. In case of injury, you move up 1, 2 or even 3 players to help fill in. Usually, there won’t be much difference between the top players on the second team, and the bottom players of the top team.


----------



## Eagle33 (Jul 17, 2020)

tjinaz said:


> I like this but not sure 16 is enough.  Have seen Girls u14 and up take multiple ACL injuries in a season and then as players play more minutes they become susceptible.  One team last year had 4 girls all out for the season with ACL.   With a team of 16 that leaves one sub in 11v11.   I would say boost that to 17 or 18 as the games and seasons get longer or have a semi permanent set of players to borrow.


Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly....
18 players - 2 of them goalkeepers.
You want 18 players plus 2 goalkeepers? 20 players?


----------



## Desert Hound (Jul 17, 2020)

I think at the older ages 18 is about the right number. 

You always see injuries and/or school conflict, family commitments, etc. 

Now if the coach is one that doesn't sub, then being towards the end of the bench is not a good thing.


----------



## tjinaz (Jul 17, 2020)

Eagle33 said:


> Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly....
> 18 players - 2 of them goalkeepers.
> You want 18 players plus 2 goalkeepers? 20 players?


I was editing when i timed out.  I think 18 total with keeper that can play field.


----------



## TOSDCI (Jul 17, 2020)

Eagle33 said:


> Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly....
> 18 players - 2 of them goalkeepers.
> You want 18 players plus 2 goalkeepers? 20 players?


Both of my kid's ECNL teams are carrying 21 players.  They are both older so the likelihood of injuries is high.  Not sure how that is going to play out this season.  It may not even matter at this point as the fall season seems less and less of a possibility.


----------



## ChrisD (Jul 17, 2020)

18 worked well for us .  11v11 , we had 4 broken arms (three at one time) and theres kids always @50% due to something.  We've done 11v11 last two years, 18 is the magic number.


----------



## Eagle33 (Jul 17, 2020)

TOSDCI said:


> Both of my kid's ECNL teams are carrying 21 players.  They are both older so the likelihood of injuries is high.  Not sure how that is going to play out this season.  It may not even matter at this point as the fall season seems less and less of a possibility.


21 players on a team is clearly about money, not about players. The argument will be "but we getting them ready for college" or to your point, "injuries will happen". Yes, in colleges they have about 30 on the roster, with around 12-14 that will never get a game time. 
Injuries is a weak argument -what if they will not happen?
Question is, unless your kid is a starter, would you join a team with 21 players?


----------



## espola (Jul 17, 2020)

Eagle33 said:


> 21 players on a team is clearly about money, not about players. The argument will be "but we getting them ready for college" or to your point, "injuries will happen". Yes, in colleges they have about 30 on the roster, with around 12-14 that will never get a game time.
> Injuries is a weak argument -what if they will not happen?
> Question is, unless your kid is a starter, would you join a team with 21 players?


If your kid is not regularly on the starting roster or at least a frequent sub (or perhaps a key position player like backup GK), look for another team.

College teams sometimes have huge rosters, but they limit the number who travel to save money, and sometimes limit the game roster if a conference rule states so.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 17, 2020)

Y’all don’t see something wrong when you have so many injuries that you need to plan for 1/4 of the team to be out at the same time?


----------



## tjinaz (Jul 17, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Y’all don’t see something wrong when you have so many injuries that you need to plan for 1/4 of the team to be out at the same time?


1/4 is subjective.  We played with 15 last year 11v11.  1 broke her arm before season even started, one had recurring knee issues Patellofemoral pain after a bad tackle early in the season and was on and off with PT, one sprained ankle, 2 or 3 with Osgood–Schlatter disease off and on, plus family vacations, events and etc.  It was rare we had all 15 at one time, most of the time it was 12 to 13 and we ended up having to borrow players from other teams to have a full roster for tournaments.  Would have been better if they simply rostered 16 or 17.  There are always other teams wanting to borrow so opportunities for playing time are there.


----------



## TOSDCI (Jul 18, 2020)

Eagle33 said:


> 21 players on a team is clearly about money, not about players. The argument will be "but we getting them ready for college" or to your point, "injuries will happen". Yes, in colleges they have about 30 on the roster, with around 12-14 that will never get a game time.
> Injuries is a weak argument -what if they will not happen?
> Question is, unless your kid is a starter, would you join a team with 21 players?


I wouldn't but both my kids are starters.  If my player was at the bottom 1/3 of the roster, I would probably put them on the B team to maximize playing time.   But you have to be very honest with yourself about your kid's ability and how they compare with the rest of the team.  I know plenty of parents that think their kids are the next big thing but clearly they are not.


----------



## lafalafa (Jul 18, 2020)

Two different scenarios, pay for play and sponsored.

For p2p anything over 18 for 11v11 is not ideal.  16-18 is fine in most cases if not can always bring in other players for within a club.

Sponsored well that's more subjective,  some leagues allow 20+ on the roster and 18 game day but depending on the sub rules 15-16 actually play so really need to train & perform in games to earn, keep that playing time. Not for everyone like p2p and the players should be the ones discussing playing time with the coaches.  If you're singing up for a sponsored team and  concerned about potential playing time might be better served looking at some of the alternatives.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 18, 2020)

Eagle33 said:


> 21 players on a team is clearly about money, not about players. The argument will be "but we getting them ready for college" or to your point, "injuries will happen". Yes, in colleges they have about 30 on the roster, with around 12-14 that will never get a game time.
> Injuries is a weak argument -what if they will not happen?
> Question is, unless your kid is a starter, would you join a team with 21 players?


Eagle is spot on; 21 is clearly about money. IMO anything above 18 is unnecessary and just about bringing in money (likely to cover scholarships of 'top' players). If you are a starter, I guess it doesn't matter how many are on the roster for games but even if you are the best player on the team, your practice is likely impacted by having more than 18 players. 

I see this first-hand with my HS program. Our rosters are around 22 players and having that many involved in a practice makes it difficult. IMO 16-18 is an ideal number for practice although the amount of field space available along with assistant coaches/helpers means that more players is possible (if you have space and extra coaches). If you just run standard drills, it's ok to accommodate 20+ players; if you are working on game-specific situations with lots of decision making, having 20+ players means trying to rotate some in/out and it's just not workable. My subjective opinion. 

@lafalafa makes some good points and I'm still strongly of the opinion that if you clearly aren't going to see much playing time (if you are towards the bottom of the roster, you should be aware of it), you should find another team. Practicing (even if the team is very strong) but not playing much (if at all) in games is foolish and won't work out for anyone in the long run.


----------



## espola (Jul 18, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> Eagle is spot on; 21 is clearly about money. IMO anything above 18 is unnecessary and just about bringing in money (likely to cover scholarships of 'top' players). If you are a starter, I guess it doesn't matter how many are on the roster for games but even if you are the best player on the team, your practice is likely impacted by having more than 18 players.
> 
> I see this first-hand with my HS program. Our rosters are around 22 players and having that many involved in a practice makes it difficult. IMO 16-18 is an ideal number for practice although the amount of field space available along with assistant coaches/helpers means that more players is possible (if you have space and extra coaches). If you just run standard drills, it's ok to accommodate 20+ players; if you are working on game-specific situations with lots of decision making, having 20+ players means trying to rotate some in/out and it's just not workable. My subjective opinion.
> 
> @lafalafa makes some good points and I'm still strongly of the opinion that if you clearly aren't going to see much playing time (if you are towards the bottom of the roster, you should be aware of it), you should find another team. Practicing (even if the team is very strong) but not playing much (if at all) in games is foolish and won't work out for anyone in the long run.


Wouldn't two full teams be better (if you have the space)?  Or do you practice the starting offense against the starting defense?


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 18, 2020)

espola said:


> Wouldn't two full teams be better (if you have the space)?  Or do you practice the starting offense against the starting defense?


With two full teams (if you have space) it can work but without multiple coaches, again it’s tough to manage everything. For me, ideally you need at least one coach looking at the tactical and decision making elements and then another looking at behavioral elements (focus, effort, communication etc).

And yes, often I’ll have offense vs defense in game scenarios and work on specific elements with one or the other (trying to focus on everything isn’t effective IMO). I’m talking from a position of only having half a field to work with (my guess is the majority of teams don’t have a full field to themselves).


----------



## Eagle33 (Jul 20, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> Eagle is spot on; 21 is clearly about money. IMO anything above 18 is unnecessary and just about bringing in money (likely to cover scholarships of 'top' players). If you are a starter, I guess it doesn't matter how many are on the roster for games but even if you are the best player on the team, your practice is likely impacted by having more than 18 players.
> 
> I see this first-hand with my HS program. Our rosters are around 22 players and having that many involved in a practice makes it difficult. IMO 16-18 is an ideal number for practice although the amount of field space available along with assistant coaches/helpers means that more players is possible (if you have space and extra coaches). If you just run standard drills, it's ok to accommodate 20+ players; if you are working on game-specific situations with lots of decision making, having 20+ players means trying to rotate some in/out and it's just not workable. My subjective opinion.
> 
> @lafalafa makes some good points and I'm still strongly of the opinion that if you clearly aren't going to see much playing time (if you are towards the bottom of the roster, you should be aware of it), you should find another team. Practicing (even if the team is very strong) but not playing much (if at all) in games is foolish and won't work out for anyone in the long run.


HS is different. In HS you have take into consideration not only injuries but also ineligibility. With too many games and practices every day, injuries/being out sick will happen. Plus you also want to have 11v11 game in the end of each session (ideally). So having 22-24 players on the roster is normal. Running sessions with 22 players and up is no problem as long as coach knows what he/she is doing. All it takes is little bit of planning and, of course, a good assistant or 2.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 20, 2020)

Eagle33 said:


> HS is different. In HS you have take into consideration not only injuries but also ineligibility. With too many games and practices every day, injuries/being out sick will happen. Plus you also want to have 11v11 game in the end of each session (ideally). So having 22-24 players on the roster is normal. Running sessions with 22 players and up is no problem as long as coach knows what he/she is doing. All it takes is little bit of planning and, of course, a good assistant or 2.


Maybe I don't know what I'm doing then. Thanks for helping me realize that Eagle. 

The 11v11 'game' (or whatever is it) isn't supposed to be at the end of each session btw; coaches get caught up in that too often, "we can play a game at the end." Game situations are where coaching/learning takes place and they should happen consistently throughout practice; it's not a reward at the end of a session, despite what coaching courses might teach you.


----------



## Eagle33 (Jul 20, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> Maybe I don't know what I'm doing then. Thanks for helping me realize that Eagle.
> 
> The 11v11 'game' (or whatever is it) isn't supposed to be at the end of each session btw; coaches get caught up in that too often, "we can play a game at the end." Game situations are where coaching/learning takes place and they should happen consistently throughout practice; it's not a reward at the end of a session, despite what coaching courses might teach you.


seems like you being overly sensitive. I never said 11v11 game is a reward or you don't know what you doing. However I don't see any issue with training 22 and up players. The more the merrier.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 20, 2020)

Eagle33 said:


> seems like you being overly sensitive. I never said 11v11 game is a reward or you don't know what you doing. However I don't see any issue with training 22 and up players. The more the merrier.


Haha not sensitive; a bit sarcastic and light hearted. It's not always understood in person so via text is even more difficult....no worries! 

The more the merrier is fine; you just miss out on lots of the nuance required for in-depth learning with too many players IMO.


----------



## espola (Jul 20, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> Haha not sensitive; a bit sarcastic and light hearted. It's not always understood in person so via text is even more difficult....no worries!
> 
> The more the merrier is fine; you just miss out on lots of the nuance required for in-depth learning with too many players IMO.


You can have a "game", but use the whistle to stop and replay situations or question players on their tactics;

"You were offside on that run - back it up and try again staying onside."

"You lost the ball because you were double-teamed - where was your open man?"


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 20, 2020)

espola said:


> You can have a "game", but use the whistle to stop and replay situations or question players on their tactics;
> 
> "You were offside on that run - back it up and try again staying onside."
> 
> "You lost the ball because you were double-teamed - where was your open man?"


Of course, no issue with that. Doing it with 22+ players impacts the quality and depth of learning unless you have lots of coaches which isn't the case for the majority of teams.


----------



## lafalafa (Jul 20, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> Of course, no issue with that. Doing it with 22+ players impacts the quality and depth of learning unless you have lots of coaches which isn't the case for the majority of teams.


At private or pay to go high schools with five coaches they might have options.

For our County public high schools we're lucky to have one good coach, or one coach who's really a history, math, or PE teacher who happens to find an volunteer assistant with some more detail knowledge of the game.


----------

