Club newbie Questions

[Chalklines]

I agree on that the focus should be primarily on training. If the coach has quality training sessions and your kids not getting pt talk to the coach and find out what area your players lacking in.

This is club soccer. Not everyone gets equal playing time. Ayso is a perfect place if your looking for fair game time minutes but the coaching will be sub par at best.

 

[espola]

Starting bottom to top. I don’t like parent coaches. I never have. They don’t belong in club soccer.

Also, if you feel like he’s diluting to fill his wallet, bail.

Attend a practice and see what else is out there.

I would say, if you want to play at a higher level, and continue to progress, both of your kids better be standouts, or prepare for them to be split at some point.

Harsh reality. Prepare for it now.

If the only reason he is coaching is because he is a parent of a kid on the team, I agree. However, if he is a good coach anyway, what's the problem?

 

[watfly]

I think it is HUGE generalization to say that "true development" occurs at practice (as opposed to games). This is really based on the individual. For some it is practice, for some it is training outside of practice and for some it is playing in games -- and for most it is some combination of the three. For my DD the biggest improvement she ever had was the year she played on likely her worst team with the coach that had the worst practices. She got better because she played pretty much every minute of every game and the coach had confidence in her and played her at one of the most important positions (center fullback) where she had to concentrate, learn to read the game in often a stressful situation (make a mistake and other team scores) and learn to not rely on other players to do the dirty work. It was the best thing that ever happened to her soccer career. She got ceremoniously cut the season before from a 'B' team at a high level club (DA) the year before where they had all their fancy practice plans and high paid coaches. Now she is as good or better than any of those players from the team she got cut from. I attribute a large chunk of that to the bad team/not so good coach she went to the next season where she played full time. And most of her skills at the younger age came from training with me ... not with any coach. Now she is with a really good team with a really good coach and still playing full time. Still plenty of room for improvement of course. I guess my point is ... don't underestimate the importance of playing time in soccer development. It is not just about showcasing what you learned in practice.

Playing time is huge for the confidence of a kid, and confidence is key to being a great player. You can have all the skill, athleticism and speed in the world but if you don't have the confidence to use it those skills are worthless. A coach can destroy a kids confidence with lack of playing time or derogatory treatment of a kid. Unfortunately many coaches and parents don't understand that aspect of sports. Practice, outside training, free play and formal games are all critical to development.

 

[CC_SoccerMom3]

If the only reason he is coaching is because he is a parent of a kid on the team, I agree. However, if he is a good coach anyway, what's the problem?

Coach states he was the creator of one of the bigger clubs in our area, but for one reason or another left that club (we've never found out why)..
I think he is trying to do the same thing with this club, but one of the main reasons he started was for his kid.
Does it make a difference if the coach's kid is the star player? or if she really should still be playing rec?

For anyone that has had a child on a losing team, did the players confidence go down? As much as my DDs understand that it is not all about winning, I have noticed a lack of trust and confidence the last few weeks.

 

[socalkdg]

They are a 2006 team. Played bronze level in CSL during fall.
We never had any plans for them to play club soccer, they had always just played AYSO and all stars.. so we are learning..
My 2 have had a good share of the minutes, 1 has played a hand full of full games..
But i do see there's a probelm when we started Fall season with 14 players.
I can certainly say my 2 are not on the top 3 of their team, but i have noticed an improvement from when they first started...
We have about 20 girls right now showing up to practices.. with them moving to 11v11 next fall, im concerned the coach will not get enough players to field 2 teams..

Key things you say are that you have noticed improvement. They are having fun. If you are able to say that after every year, then you are going in the right direction. Our coach had a kid on the team, but she didn't get much playing time. If all the girls are improving and the team stays bronze another year, then I'd expect winning to happen next year. The grass is not always greener on the other side.

 

[watfly]

Sorry, but I completely disagree. The game is 1.5 hours. Practice is 6-8 hours per week. The game is simply a demonstration of the culmination of hours of practice. True development occurs during practice and training.

That's the same line of BS that coaches, who are more concerned about winning than development, use on parents to justify the lack of playing time for their kid. Why did the coach even choose a kid if they weren't going to play? If that's the case than the coach should be upfront at selection time with the parents (I know wishful thinking). Now I appreciate that things change during the season, but still... Maybe at flight 1, but anything below that for the youngers, playing time should never be an issue.

Beside confidence, the other problem with limited playing time is that while some kids will rise to the occasion, most young kids are going to go into the game and be more focused on not making a mistake for fear they will be pulled. That's no way to play or develop in soccer.

 

[Messi>CR7]

Coach states he was the creator of one of the bigger clubs in our area, but for one reason or another left that club (we've never found out why)..
I think he is trying to do the same thing with this club, but one of the main reasons he started was for his kid.
Does it make a difference if the coach's kid is the star player? or if she really should still be playing rec?

For anyone that has had a child on a losing team, did the players confidence go down? As much as my DDs understand that it is not all about winning, I have noticed a lack of trust and confidence the last few weeks.

That depends on what you meant by losing. If your team is 3-9 or 4-8, but competitive in 8 or 9 out of the 12 games, then there is nothing wrong with that if you see improvement in your DD. Playing against better teams is how you improve. My DD usually had more fun in a 1-2 loss than a 7-0 win.

If your team is 1-11 or 0-12 with no realistic chance to win any of the games, it gets old and demoralizing very quick for kids and parents. Not much learning is happening when you're getting killed 7-0.

Does your parent coach get paid? My take on the parent (AYSO or unpaid club) coach is that my DD needs to be "clearly" better than coach's DD if my DD wants more playing time than coach's daughter. Since the coach volunteers his valuable time, I have no problem (but my wife does ) if coach's daughter gets more playing time compared to players with similar skills.

 

[futboldad1]

They are a 2006 team. Played bronze level in CSL during fall.
We never had any plans for them to play club soccer, they had always just played AYSO and all stars.. so we are learning..
My 2 have had a good share of the minutes, 1 has played a hand full of full games..
But i do see there's a probelm when we started Fall season with 14 players.
I can certainly say my 2 are not on the top 3 of their team, but i have noticed an improvement from when they first started...
We have about 20 girls right now showing up to practices.. with them moving to 11v11 next fall, im concerned the coach will not get enough players to field 2 teams..

Some thoughts from this thread...

- on top 9v9 teams 14 players is an acceptable maximum number due to all the travel and games
- but 50%+ should still be the minimum playing time per game
- "doing a skill" before you can shoot is the creation of a terrible habit unless the game is already 10-0
- licenses, as others have said, mean diddly squat
- can the coach communicate, are they dependable, do they develop?

 

[TangoCity]

Playing time is huge for the confidence of a kid, and confidence is key to being a great player. You can have all the skill, athleticism and speed in the world but if you don't have the confidence to use it those skills are worthless. A coach can destroy a kids confidence with lack of playing time or derogatory treatment of a kid. Unfortunately many coaches and parents don't understand that aspect of sports. Practice, outside training, free play and formal games are all critical to development.

This x 100. The game (not any coach) is the best teacher. You "have" to play to get better. Practice, training etc... is obviously important (like I said) but playing the game not sitting on the bench is the 'best' teacher of the game.

 

[Grace T.]

This x 100. The game (not any coach) is the best teacher. You "have" to play to get better. Practice, training etc... is obviously important (like I said) but playing the game not sitting on the bench is the 'best' teacher of the game.

Just a note to the OP by way of background, and not taking an position here. The division you are witnessing here on this point mirrors one of the debates going on in U.S. Soccer. Oversimplifying but there is a group that believes that the game is the best teacher and the best way to develop. They've had the upper hand in the club soccer world the last several years. As a result, the coach licensing training focuses on teaching coaches to use "guided self-learning" for players...to have the players play one v one, small group, full scrimmage and games so the players can learn by playing, under the guided direction of the coach. They've developed a philosophy that lines are bad and practice should always emphasize the team and build up to a scrimmage. The criticism of this school of thought is if the coach does only this, where will players learn their individual skills (the answer usually given is a private trainer, parent, or skills academy). AYSO's curriculum by contrast has focused on developing individual skills to build self-confidence (lines, for example, give the coach the opportunity to observe the technique of each individual player, but the criticism is they are boring for the kids who have to sit and wait instead of do) though with the rise of United, we'll see if that continues.

 

[Mystery Train]

For anyone that has had a child on a losing team, did the players confidence go down? As much as my DDs understand that it is not all about winning, I have noticed a lack of trust and confidence the last few weeks.

Most of our kids were on a losing team at some point or another. At your daughter's age, the only reason to be concerned about losing or winning is in the "how" of the losing or winning. If the team is competitive but coming up short frequently, or if the coach is developing the girls' style and they are making mistakes (you said most of them are new to club, so this is to be expected) then the losing season(s) will just make the payoff that much sweeter as they get better. If they work through the trust issues and develop, the losses are actually quite valuable. On the other hand, if they are getting blown out in Bronze level games and the coach is yelling at players and the families are backstabbing over playing time and the girls are blaming each other, well then that's a whole different story. A couple of seasons of that will kill off a kid's desire to continue forever.

The big questions you need to ask yourself as a parent to figure out how to manage your kids playing club soccer are: Why are we doing this? What are the short term and long term goals for the kids? You and the kids need to have a very solid agreement on this. Those answers will dictate the rest. If they're doing it for fun, to learn the lessons that come from physical competition and team sports, to give them a foundation for a life-long love of sports, then your choice of coach/team/club will always be answered by them with this: Are you having fun? Some kids aren't having fun unless they are winning and improving, so winning may be a factor in the decision, but it isn't the big one.

If you are doing this because you think your kid is good and could get a college scholarship or could be a "star" with the right coach, with the right club, and in the right league, then your choices will not matter because all of that is out of your hands anyway: If your kid is destined to be that good, they'll end up making it no matter what obstacles are there. (And God help you if that is how it goes because that's no easy road despite being what every parent dreams of...such a life is filled with pressure, stress, and much anguish.) They will literally drive the whole process of their growth, and leave you (and the coaches) helpless to keep them from it. If they're not that kid, they're going to end up miserable no matter what choices you make because these are the wrong goals to begin with.

It is common to get caught in the middle of those two goals. A kid who is better than 75% of everyone else but not in the top 10% and who has big ambitions may end up very frustrated in the club soccer world, because lower level "fun" soccer isn't competitive enough, and they continually get overlooked by the high level teams where they might have the opportunity to work their way into their highest potential. This is kind of the worst case scenario, because as a parent you just don't know how far to go down the rabbit hole before you say, "this is insane."

So, in the end, it must always come back to "Are you having fun?" Because it's sports, right?

 

[Chalklines]

Playing time is huge for the confidence of a kid, and confidence is key to being a great player. You can have all the skill, athleticism and speed in the world but if you don't have the confidence to use it those skills are worthless. A coach can destroy a kids confidence with lack of playing time or derogatory treatment of a kid. Unfortunately many coaches and parents don't understand that aspect of sports. Practice, outside training, free play and formal games are all critical to development.

Totally agree with this but if your kids part of the bench mob and they cant be trusted on the field its time for a new club.

Playing time needs to be earned.

 

[MakeAPlay]

Most of our kids were on a losing team at some point or another. At your daughter's age, the only reason to be concerned about losing or winning is in the "how" of the losing or winning. If the team is competitive but coming up short frequently, or if the coach is developing the girls' style and they are making mistakes (you said most of them are new to club, so this is to be expected) then the losing season(s) will just make the payoff that much sweeter as they get better. If they work through the trust issues and develop, the losses are actually quite valuable. On the other hand, if they are getting blown out in Bronze level games and the coach is yelling at players and the families are backstabbing over playing time and the girls are blaming each other, well then that's a whole different story. A couple of seasons of that will kill off a kid's desire to continue forever.

The big questions you need to ask yourself as a parent to figure out how to manage your kids playing club soccer are: Why are we doing this? What are the short term and long term goals for the kids? You and the kids need to have a very solid agreement on this. Those answers will dictate the rest. If they're doing it for fun, to learn the lessons that come from physical competition and team sports, to give them a foundation for a life-long love of sports, then your choice of coach/team/club will always be answered by them with this: Are you having fun? Some kids aren't having fun unless they are winning and improving, so winning may be a factor in the decision, but it isn't the big one.

If you are doing this because you think your kid is good and could get a college scholarship or could be a "star" with the right coach, with the right club, and in the right league, then your choices will not matter because all of that is out of your hands anyway: If your kid is destined to be that good, they'll end up making it no matter what obstacles are there. (And God help you if that is how it goes because that's no easy road despite being what every parent dreams of...such a life is filled with pressure, stress, and much anguish.) They will literally drive the whole process of their growth, and leave you (and the coaches) helpless to keep them from it. If they're not that kid, they're going to end up miserable no matter what choices you make because these are the wrong goals to begin with.

It is common to get caught in the middle of those two goals. A kid who is better than 75% of everyone else but not in the top 10% and who has big ambitions may end up very frustrated in the club soccer world, because lower level "fun" soccer isn't competitive enough, and they continually get overlooked by the high level teams where they might have the opportunity to work their way into their highest potential. This is kind of the worst case scenario, because as a parent you just don't know how far to go down the rabbit hole before you say, "this is insane."

So, in the end, it must always come back to "Are you having fun?" Because it's sports, right?

Great post MT!!

 

[socalkdg]

Just a note to the OP by way of background, and not taking an position here. The division you are witnessing here on this point mirrors one of the debates going on in U.S. Soccer. Oversimplifying but there is a group that believes that the game is the best teacher and the best way to develop. They've had the upper hand in the club soccer world the last several years. As a result, the coach licensing training focuses on teaching coaches to use "guided self-learning" for players...to have the players play one v one, small group, full scrimmage and games so the players can learn by playing, under the guided direction of the coach. They've developed a philosophy that lines are bad and practice should always emphasize the team and build up to a scrimmage. The criticism of this school of thought is if the coach does only this, where will players learn their individual skills (the answer usually given is a private trainer, parent, or skills academy). AYSO's curriculum by contrast has focused on developing individual skills to build self-confidence (lines, for example, give the coach the opportunity to observe the technique of each individual player, but the criticism is they are boring for the kids who have to sit and wait instead of do) though with the rise of United, we'll see if that continues.

Lines aren't required to observe individual technique. Having 14 kids in their individual square all doing the same type of footwork makes it pretty easy to see which kids need adjustments to the technique that they are using. Multiple stations with everyone working once again allows you to see how players are doing without lines. How about a mix of both playing the game and working on technique. Plus who actually thinks two practices a week of 90 minutes and one game of 60 minutes is actually going to improve our soccer. My oldest dances 15 hours a week, my soccer kid plays basketball on her own every day, plus soccer 3 times per week. Lets get kids up to 8 hours per week and we will see a great improvement to our soccer programs. If your kid loves soccer, 8 hours is nothing. 1 hour individual skills, 1 hour short sided scrimmages. 4 times per week.

 

[jrcaesar]

Players learn/develop in practice is half the equation. Players "perform" in games is the other half. There are too many clubs/teams out there where if your child isn't playing 50% of the team, you need to find a team and coach where the child can play. When they are 36 and telling tales of their youth, they won't be saying how grateful they were the year they were 11 and sat on the bench "because, man, did I learn by practicing that year."

 

[Grace T.]

Lines aren't required to observe individual technique. Having 14 kids in their individual square all doing the same type of footwork makes it pretty easy to see which kids need adjustments to the technique that they are using. Multiple stations with everyone working once again allows you to see how players are doing without lines. How about a mix of both playing the game and working on technique. Plus who actually thinks two practices a week of 90 minutes and one game of 60 minutes is actually going to improve our soccer. My oldest dances 15 hours a week, my soccer kid plays basketball on her own every day, plus soccer 3 times per week. Lets get kids up to 8 hours per week and we will see a great improvement to our soccer programs. If your kid loves soccer, 8 hours is nothing. 1 hour individual skills, 1 hour short sided scrimmages. 4 times per week.

I've actually found the lines to be useful, particularly with the youngers, when they are just learning how to pass, shoot or cross to get down individual technique, but are past the entire "let's just explore the ball" phase. Like anything, it's a tool, and one that you probably don't need for the olders. Stations are great too, but require a good assistant coach that can keep an eye on things since coach's eye can't be on every station and on every kid. Not every team has the luxury of having an assistant coach present for every practice (if they get paid it costs more), and indeed some have complained on this forum that they sometimes only get the assistant coach (and not the head coach who is off handling multiple teams). Individual squares are another great tool but again requires multiple eyes, and work especially well for things like teaching a skill move. US Soccer doesn't seem to want us to use any of these techniques though beyond the initial "warm up" phase.

The problem with 8 hours of soccer, of course, is that it forces you to make a choice with school, particularly if you have an academically motivated kid in an advanced program once you get out of ULittles. Then the question for the athlete becomes is it worth it to spend all that time on an activity for which I can't get scholarship, isn't going to get me recruited, and is only going to check a box in the well rounded assessment. My kid does about 7 during the season, is a GK with specialized training, and that's kind of pushing it with his elementary school (and I sometimes feel he doesn't get enough by way of either field or GK training as a result since both get shortchanged). But it's all about what kind of soccer do we want...do we want a world of 8-10 hours of soccer that scares off kids who aren't in the 10% or who are on the academic track, do we want a system that encourages broad participation....I personally hope the coming elections bring us choices and recognize that one size doesn't fit all.

 

[John Akii-Bua]

This sounds like a combustible team situation. Please, whatever you do, don't give this guy a big check for next year. Pay him month to month. six, eight months from now this group of kids could look very very different, and you don't want to be the one locked into a bad situation.

Although it's possible this is a good coach going through a sticky growth moment, your post raises a couple of red flags, so I'd proceed with caution. Inform yourself as to what you want out of club soccer and a club soccer coach. It's a hard slog to get good information here, but if you read enough threads you'll start to understand the club soccer environment. There are plenty of threads from newbies looking for advice, so that'd be a place to start.

This club seems like a shoestring operation. I'd find out right away if the guy is actually pulling permits on fields. If not, he's ripping you off and putting himself and your kids at risk. His Cal South insurance isn't valid. Next, is there a director of coaches or technical director at the club? I'd ask them what the club philosophy is about playing time. In general, get to know the DOC. On the other hand, those guys are usually smooth at placating parents, so be skeptical and firm.

remember, club soccer is run by people who love soccer, but don't necessarily know the first thing about running an organization or how to treat people. The more you engage, the better your kids' experience will be.

If the coach is still giving certain players minutes, in order to keep their parents happy ($$$), do we stick around for yet another losing season?

I'd say no. not because you're losing, but because he's ripping the families off and it won't be much fun. Anyway, the team will blow up in a year or two. In general, you want to look for a team where the gap between the best and the worst player is smallest. That way the coach can teach to the same level, everyone will have shared interests, and playing time can be fair.

If I were you, I'd be quietly checking out other clubs nearby, or at the very least talking to families about their experience. At this stage in their development, I'd be looking for a coach that emphasizes technical skills, but MT's advice is more important.

Finally, if the CC in your name refers to Culver City, I'd read the current thread on the westside merger.

 

[seesnake]

I've actually found the lines to be useful, particularly with the youngers, when they are just learning how to pass, shoot or cross to get down individual technique, but are past the entire "let's just explore the ball" phase. Like anything, it's a tool, and one that you probably don't need for the olders. Stations are great too, but require a good assistant coach that can keep an eye on things since coach's eye can't be on every station and on every kid. Not every team has the luxury of having an assistant coach present for every practice (if they get paid it costs more), and indeed some have complained on this forum that they sometimes only get the assistant coach (and not the head coach who is off handling multiple teams). Individual squares are another great tool but again requires multiple eyes, and work especially well for things like teaching a skill move. US Soccer doesn't seem to want us to use any of these techniques though beyond the initial "warm up" phase.

I've seen several skilled coaches have technical work done with everyone or nearly everyone on the ball and then they just shift their attention from player to player so instead of having lines to isolate attention while others are static, they have their own observation isolated on a player while others get purposeful touches (not always perfect touches). The kids also avoid boredom and the feeling of everyone watching one/two players while getting a bit of a sweat going. Some of the best build technical work in progressions that require decision making and are more game-like while requiring technical skill.

Lines are tools that are comfortable and easily managed by a coach, which make them popular and ubiquitous (also anachronistic imho), but in many cases can be eliminated to multiply the actual learning time of the players. I think at the very introduction of new technical work or in high-load physical work, to build in rest periods, lines are a good choice.

 

[watfly]

The problem with 8 hours of soccer, of course, is that it forces you to make a choice with school, particularly if you have an academically motivated kid in an advanced program once you get out of ULittles.

8 hours is nothing for a kid that is passionate and committed to their sport. I can show you a whole room of dance girls that train 20 hours per week and are academic high achievers. None of which will likely see a dime of scholarship money for dance.

 

[Grace T.]

8 hours is nothing for a kid that is passionate and committed to their sport. I can show you a whole room of dance girls that train 20 hours per week and are academic high achievers. None of which will likely see a dime of scholarship money for dance.

I can totally believe that. In fact, I've interviewed kids who've done that for college. But the reality is that in high school your time goes 4 places: academics, extracurriculars/sports, socializing/family and sleep (5 if you count service/church as separate from extracurriculars). We all make choices. I see a lot of kids, for example, that neglect the sleep or social aspects, and sometimes that can not only hurt their happiness, it surprisingly can even affect their application. If the kid is passionate and wants to spend 20 hours dancing or playing soccer, more power to them. But at least when it comes to college applications, the question needs to be asked if that's the best use of their time. Scholarship or no, if they plan on playing soccer or dancing in college (I wasn't a dance major, for instance, but did my college's competitive ballroom team), then sure it's a great fit. But if the kid applies saying they are obsessed with particle physics and science, and are spending all their time on dance and not particle physics, the admissions board is going to ask what are they doing with their time and time management. Matters less for schools that just take GPA+ test scores like many state schools. Matters less if you aren't going to college or don't think it's a priority. But if you are taking even a partial AP/honors load, have 20 hours a week on an activity, and have high college aspirations, time management choices become very important. That's why on applications I see lots of kids drop travel programs around freshman year of high school--- time pressures mount up and they have to chose to go on the sport route or the academic route.