SOCCER POSTS ONLY... Can this be done?

Governor of Nevada just announced a 3 week pause, limits of gatherings to no more than 50 if I remember correctly and specifically mentioned all youth and adult sporting tournaments must be cancelled, even those with prior authorization
 
silverback said:
Governor of Nevada just announced a 3 week pause, limits of gatherings to no more than 50 if I remember correctly and specifically mentioned all youth and adult sporting tournaments must be cancelled, even those with prior authorization
Click to expand...
No more ICU beds as of today in AZ
 
watfly said:
At this point the only reason to play games, tournament or scrimmage, is purely for fun. Its a great reason, but if we think its prepping our kids for a competitive season or much development we may be delusional. I hope I'm wrong but the 20-21 season is likely done. I just don't see us playing in CA before summer, and long after first round of tryouts for 21-22.
Click to expand...

Nah, January 20th the news will stop over hyping the China virus and before you know it life will start seeing signs of normalcy again...soccer play will be just fine then and it will be like a miracle happened as all the doom and gloom suddenly vanishes.
 
dad4 said:
Has anyone had trouble getting their coach to limit playing time if that's what you want?
Click to expand...
There's the rub. I've seen parents blame losses on lack of depth on the bench then turn around and threaten to leave if their player doesn't get their "deserved" playing time.

Personally, at U15 and above, I prefer smaller rosters - 15 max. More playing time, the team is better synched, the off the bench players have immediate and planned impact. It's a risk but provides the stronger, younger players to play up if/when their is a gap on the bench. Team culture is more stable and predictable with a smaller roster.

Now, with that said, smaller rosters = less $$$.
 
happy9 said:
There's the rub. I've seen parents blame losses on lack of depth on the bench then turn around and threaten to leave if their player doesn't get their "deserved" playing time.

Personally, at U15 and above, I prefer smaller rosters - 15 max. More playing time, the team is better synched, the off the bench players have immediate and planned impact. It's a risk but provides the stronger, younger players to play up if/when their is a gap on the bench. Team culture is more stable and predictable with a smaller roster.

Now, with that said, smaller rosters = less $$$.
Click to expand...
15 is fine for single games, but for the 3 games in 3 days showcases and playoffs, it's not enough.
 
I think, (just from reading through Twitter,) it's actually *staffed ICU beds. So there are beds, just nobody to cover them.

Not in this fight, just trying to offer a different POV.
 
Glitterhater said:
I think, (just from reading through Twitter,) it's actually *staffed ICU beds. So there are beds, just nobody to cover them.

Not in this fight, just trying to offer a different POV.
Click to expand...

@Glitterhater @Chalklines @happy9 Take it to off topic and figure out who's right and who's wrong please! This thread looks like a somewhat normal soccer thread. I understand the NV pause and canceled tourneys are soccer talk but the squiggly lines, etc. can be discussed on other thread.

P.S. This Raiders game is killing me
 
happy9 said:
There's the rub. I've seen parents blame losses on lack of depth on the bench then turn around and threaten to leave if their player doesn't get their "deserved" playing time.

Personally, at U15 and above, I prefer smaller rosters - 15 max. More playing time, the team is better synched, the off the bench players have immediate and planned impact. It's a risk but provides the stronger, younger players to play up if/when their is a gap on the bench. Team culture is more stable and predictable with a smaller roster.

Now, with that said, smaller rosters = less $$$.
Click to expand...
My experience has been...I prefer rosters at 17-18. As the kids have gotten older I see more injuries overall, and it is not uncommon to have 2-4 girls out at any one time.
 
Desert Hound said:
My experience has been...I prefer rosters at 17-18. As the kids have gotten older I see more injuries overall, and it is not uncommon to have 2-4 girls out at any one time.
Click to expand...
Roster size discussion is something I can get behind. I'm sure it's been discussed before and opinions are based on personal experience, level of the team, and the buy in from players and parents.

Injuries and social life definitely impacts roster size, especially for U16 and older. Carry larger rosters at U15. As players get older the talent pyramid obviously gets narrower and there is less playing time for players. Unless you are getting paid to sit the bench, siting the bench is not fun, especially for parents.

Would you carry two keepers or just one for U16 and above?
 
happy9 said:
Roster size discussion is something I can get behind. I'm sure it's been discussed before and opinions are based on personal experience, level of the team, and the buy in from players and parents.

Injuries and social life definitely impacts roster size, especially for U16 and older. Carry larger rosters at U15. As players get older the talent pyramid obviously gets narrower and there is less playing time for players. Unless you are getting paid to sit the bench, siting the bench is not fun, especially for parents.

Would you carry two keepers or just one for U16 and above?
Click to expand...

for the boys at that age higher levels you have to carry 2. They get sick or injured. It just sucks though for the weaker keeper and at that level balancing playtime to develop both isn’t as much of a priority.

for the girls there’s still a goalkeeper shortage but don’t the highest teams also carry 2?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top