Starting, Bench-Sitting, and Questioning the Status Quo

silentparent wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:What about the other side of the coin... If your DD starts every single game, maybe you should consider switching teams so that she'll be more challenged. There are a couple posts on here with proclamations that their DD is a “starter”. Those posts imply that their DD is some type of immovable fixture. Why not take it up a notch then? Why not look for a team where she has to start earning her minutes all over again?

That really doesn't make sense. Just because you are a starter doesn't mean you aren't challenged. Why would I take away playing time that she has worked so hard to earn? Maybe we like the coach? Maybe my DD likes her teammates.

Some of you guys need to face facts. If your upset that your DD isn't a starter, you should help your daughter improve and not try to just demand that the coach start her.

There are many better options for building her confidence.
-Form a 3v3 team with some of her friends
-Do extra skills classes
-Let her play in an additional rec league to get some goals
-Practice with her at home

If your kid doesn't have the desire to try and earn a starting job, maybe she just don't have the passion for the sport. In my opinion, out of all of the youth sports, soccer takes the longest amount of time to see real long term improvement. Either your DD is willing to put in the work or she isn't. On the flip side of that, some parents aren't willing to put in the extra time to help their DD improve.

Once again, i got mine, buzz off. you didn't answer the question why not reach for a better team even if you have to ride the bench? remember gotta have that passion, put in the work, get extra skills etc. what's good for the goose isn't apparently good for the gander.....

silentparent wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:What about the other side of the coin... If your DD starts every single game, maybe you should consider switching teams so that she'll be more challenged. There are a couple posts on here with proclamations that their DD is a “starter”. Those posts imply that their DD is some type of immovable fixture. Why not take it up a notch then? Why not look for a team where she has to start earning her minutes all over again?

That really doesn't make sense. Just because you are a starter doesn't mean you aren't challenged. Why would I take away playing time that she has worked so hard to earn? Maybe we like the coach? Maybe my DD likes her teammates.

Some of you guys need to face facts. If your upset that your DD isn't a starter, you should help your daughter improve and not try to just demand that the coach start her.

There are many better options for building her confidence.
-Form a 3v3 team with some of her friends
-Do extra skills classes
-Let her play in an additional rec league to get some goals
-Practice with her at home

If your kid doesn't have the desire to try and earn a starting job, maybe she just don't have the passion for the sport. In my opinion, out of all of the youth sports, soccer takes the longest amount of time to see real long term improvement. Either your DD is willing to put in the work or she isn't. On the flip side of that, some parents aren't willing to put in the extra time to help their DD improve.

Once again, i got mine, buzz off. you didn't answer the question why not reach for a better team even if you have to ride the bench? remember gotta have that passion, put in the work, get extra skills etc. what's good for the goose isn't apparently good for the gander.....

bigtex75081 wrote:

silentparent wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:What about the other side of the coin... If your DD starts every single game, maybe you should consider switching teams so that she'll be more challenged. There are a couple posts on here with proclamations that their DD is a “starter”. Those posts imply that their DD is some type of immovable fixture. Why not take it up a notch then? Why not look for a team where she has to start earning her minutes all over again?

That really doesn't make sense. Just because you are a starter doesn't mean you aren't challenged. Why would I take away playing time that she has worked so hard to earn? Maybe we like the coach? Maybe my DD likes her teammates.

Some of you guys need to face facts. If your upset that your DD isn't a starter, you should help your daughter improve and not try to just demand that the coach start her.

There are many better options for building her confidence.
-Form a 3v3 team with some of her friends
-Do extra skills classes
-Let her play in an additional rec league to get some goals
-Practice with her at home

If your kid doesn't have the desire to try and earn a starting job, maybe she just don't have the passion for the sport. In my opinion, out of all of the youth sports, soccer takes the longest amount of time to see real long term improvement. Either your DD is willing to put in the work or she isn't. On the flip side of that, some parents aren't willing to put in the extra time to help their DD improve.

Once again, i got mine, buzz off. you didn't answer the question why not reach for a better team even if you have to ride the bench? remember gotta have that passion, put in the work, get extra skills etc. what's good for the goose isn't apparently good for the gander.....

I think it's a little hypocritical for a parent of a "star starter" to instruct a parent of a "bench player" to find another team.

If you DD is a "star starter" then, in all seriousness, she's probably not being challenged by her teammates during practice. She's also probably not getting the harshest feedback from a coach that doesn't want to jeopardize losing her. Your DD may be the best player on her team but is she the best player she can be? Will all of her potential be realized in her current place?

IMO... Ideally you want your DD to be the 5th-8th best player on a team. In that range she's being challenged by competition in practice and pushed by her coach to improve. In that range though, she should still be getting plenty of burn on the field during games. The minutes that she doesn’t get should be used as a target to reach for.

You can't have it both ways though. You can't claim to be all about your DD's development if she's definitively the best player on her squad. If you’re really about developing her as a complete player then she needs to move up a level. She needs higher targets to aim for. There's always a bigger fish.

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:

silentparent wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:What about the other side of the coin... If your DD starts every single game, maybe you should consider switching teams so that she'll be more challenged. There are a couple posts on here with proclamations that their DD is a “starter”. Those posts imply that their DD is some type of immovable fixture. Why not take it up a notch then? Why not look for a team where she has to start earning her minutes all over again?

That really doesn't make sense. Just because you are a starter doesn't mean you aren't challenged. Why would I take away playing time that she has worked so hard to earn? Maybe we like the coach? Maybe my DD likes her teammates.

Some of you guys need to face facts. If your upset that your DD isn't a starter, you should help your daughter improve and not try to just demand that the coach start her.

There are many better options for building her confidence.
-Form a 3v3 team with some of her friends
-Do extra skills classes
-Let her play in an additional rec league to get some goals
-Practice with her at home

If your kid doesn't have the desire to try and earn a starting job, maybe she just don't have the passion for the sport. In my opinion, out of all of the youth sports, soccer takes the longest amount of time to see real long term improvement. Either your DD is willing to put in the work or she isn't. On the flip side of that, some parents aren't willing to put in the extra time to help their DD improve.

Once again, i got mine, buzz off. you didn't answer the question why not reach for a better team even if you have to ride the bench? remember gotta have that passion, put in the work, get extra skills etc. what's good for the goose isn't apparently good for the gander.....

I think it's a little hypocritical for a parent of a "star starter" to instruct a parent of a "bench player" to find another team.

If you DD is a "star starter" then, in all seriousness, she's probably not being challenged by her teammates during practice. She's also probably not getting the harshest feedback from a coach that doesn't want to jeopardize losing her. Your DD may be the best player on her team but is she the best player she can be? Will all of her potential be realized in her current place?

IMO... Ideally you want your DD to be the 5th-8th best player on a team. In that range she's being challenged by competition in practice and pushed by her coach to improve. In that range though, she should still be getting plenty of burn on the field during games. The minutes that she doesn’t get should be used as a target to reach for.

You can't have it both ways though. You can't claim to be all about your DD's development if she's definitively the best player on her squad. If you’re really about developing her as a complete player then she needs to move up a level. She needs higher targets to aim for. There's always a bigger fish.

Then how do you explain SRSA 03, DT South 03, etc., etc? How come they keep getting better?
Real development comes from touches outside of the game.

silentparent wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:What about the other side of the coin... If your DD starts every single game, maybe you should consider switching teams so that she'll be more challenged. There are a couple posts on here with proclamations that their DD is a “starter”. Those posts imply that their DD is some type of immovable fixture. Why not take it up a notch then? Why not look for a team where she has to start earning her minutes all over again?

That really doesn't make sense. Just because you are a starter doesn't mean you aren't challenged. Why would I take away playing time that she has worked so hard to earn? Maybe we like the coach? Maybe my DD likes her teammates.

Some of you guys need to face facts. If your upset that your DD isn't a starter, you should help your daughter improve and not try to just demand that the coach start her.

There are many better options for building her confidence.
-Form a 3v3 team with some of her friends
-Do extra skills classes
-Let her play in an additional rec league to get some goals
-Practice with her at home

If your kid doesn't have the desire to try and earn a starting job, maybe she just don't have the passion for the sport. In my opinion, out of all of the youth sports, soccer takes the longest amount of time to see real long term improvement. Either your DD is willing to put in the work or she isn't. On the flip side of that, some parents aren't willing to put in the extra time to help their DD improve.

Once again, i got mine, buzz off. you didn't answer the question why not reach for a better team even if you have to ride the bench? remember gotta have that passion, put in the work, get extra skills etc. what's good for the goose isn't apparently good for the gander.....

dse wrote:Why would a starter's parents care about a "bench player". I mean if you are a starter why would you care what the "bench player" is doing. By the way, "bench player" is such a ridiculous term. Really? How arrogant is anyone to title a player a "bench player". I think if you are arrogant enough to diminish a child with that label then you need to move your child on up to a more competitive team and see how well your daughter really is.

ball2theface wrote:

silentparent wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:What about the other side of the coin... If your DD starts every single game, maybe you should consider switching teams so that she'll be more challenged. There are a couple posts on here with proclamations that their DD is a “starter”. Those posts imply that their DD is some type of immovable fixture. Why not take it up a notch then? Why not look for a team where she has to start earning her minutes all over again?

That really doesn't make sense. Just because you are a starter doesn't mean you aren't challenged. Why would I take away playing time that she has worked so hard to earn? Maybe we like the coach? Maybe my DD likes her teammates.

Some of you guys need to face facts. If your upset that your DD isn't a starter, you should help your daughter improve and not try to just demand that the coach start her.

There are many better options for building her confidence.
-Form a 3v3 team with some of her friends
-Do extra skills classes
-Let her play in an additional rec league to get some goals
-Practice with her at home

If your kid doesn't have the desire to try and earn a starting job, maybe she just don't have the passion for the sport. In my opinion, out of all of the youth sports, soccer takes the longest amount of time to see real long term improvement. Either your DD is willing to put in the work or she isn't. On the flip side of that, some parents aren't willing to put in the extra time to help their DD improve.

Once again, i got mine, buzz off. you didn't answer the question why not reach for a better team even if you have to ride the bench? remember gotta have that passion, put in the work, get extra skills etc. what's good for the goose isn't apparently good for the gander.....

I'll answer the question-
First, I think it's a common mistake for parents to confuse their daughter's excitement for playing the game with "passion" when instead it's the social aspects and social status that this opportunity gives them driving them to do it. At this age do you really think these girls have the maturity required to have passion for soccer? Isn't passion for this game a long journey that they have only embarked on? Many of you may not realize or agree but I would submit to you that the motivation 95% of your girls have to play is driven primarily because they are searching for their identity just like every one of their peers. For now, competitive soccer may be filling that need but after your daughter plays another 2-3 years at this level this excitement is very likely to drift away and they will want to quit. And, you can be sure that if you are pushing them to ride the bench while they "put in the work, get extra skills, etc." rather than putting them in a position to be in the game and enjoy their time doing so, you will drive away that excitement very quickly.

There is no faster way to make a player (especially a girl) at this age lose what excitement (or passion) they might have for the game than to drive them in a way that always puts them behind the pack. Most of them, not all but most, will only learn that they are not good enough or will ever be good enough to meet the expectations... much less learn about passion for the game or anything else in life...

My suggestion; Give them every opportunity you can, let them lead and let the excitement carry them through, put them on a team where they will enjoy playing and the passion will come for those that are destined to have it.

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

ball2theface wrote:

silentparent wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:What about the other side of the coin... If your DD starts every single game, maybe you should consider switching teams so that she'll be more challenged. There are a couple posts on here with proclamations that their DD is a “starter”. Those posts imply that their DD is some type of immovable fixture. Why not take it up a notch then? Why not look for a team where she has to start earning her minutes all over again?

That really doesn't make sense. Just because you are a starter doesn't mean you aren't challenged. Why would I take away playing time that she has worked so hard to earn? Maybe we like the coach? Maybe my DD likes her teammates.

Some of you guys need to face facts. If your upset that your DD isn't a starter, you should help your daughter improve and not try to just demand that the coach start her.

There are many better options for building her confidence.
-Form a 3v3 team with some of her friends
-Do extra skills classes
-Let her play in an additional rec league to get some goals
-Practice with her at home

If your kid doesn't have the desire to try and earn a starting job, maybe she just don't have the passion for the sport. In my opinion, out of all of the youth sports, soccer takes the longest amount of time to see real long term improvement. Either your DD is willing to put in the work or she isn't. On the flip side of that, some parents aren't willing to put in the extra time to help their DD improve.

Once again, i got mine, buzz off. you didn't answer the question why not reach for a better team even if you have to ride the bench? remember gotta have that passion, put in the work, get extra skills etc. what's good for the goose isn't apparently good for the gander.....

I'll answer the question-
First, I think it's a common mistake for parents to confuse their daughter's excitement for playing the game with "passion" when instead it's the social aspects and social status that this opportunity gives them driving them to do it. At this age do you really think these girls have the maturity required to have passion for soccer? Isn't passion for this game a long journey that they have only embarked on? Many of you may not realize or agree but I would submit to you that the motivation 95% of your girls have to play is driven primarily because they are searching for their identity just like every one of their peers. For now, competitive soccer may be filling that need but after your daughter plays another 2-3 years at this level this excitement is very likely to drift away and they will want to quit. And, you can be sure that if you are pushing them to ride the bench while they "put in the work, get extra skills, etc." rather than putting them in a position to be in the game and enjoy their time doing so, you will drive away that excitement very quickly.

There is no faster way to make a player (especially a girl) at this age lose what excitement (or passion) they might have for the game than to drive them in a way that always puts them behind the pack. Most of them, not all but most, will only learn that they are not good enough or will ever be good enough to meet the expectations... much less learn about passion for the game or anything else in life...

My suggestion; Give them every opportunity you can, let them lead and let the excitement carry them through, put them on a team where they will enjoy playing and the passion will come for those that are destined to have it.

I know of quite a few girls under the age of 10 that would play soccer every single day if you let them. Some of these kids eat and breath soccer. Some people assume that little girls are only in sports to socialize. "Little Suzy" is a girl, she couldn't possibly be passionate! This is a stereotype. Girls can be just as passionate as boys about sports.
Kids with passion don't have to be pushed.
But I do agree that there are lots of kids that don't have passion and are pushed too hard by their parents who want them to become superstars.

bigtex75081 wrote:
The top 3-5 teams in each group keep getting better because the parents that want to keep pushing their DDs migrate to those teams. After a while, the "star starters" on those teams will need to move on again. There are other outlets as the girls get older. (i.e. ODP, ECNL, National Team, elite college programs, professional, etc.)

wilatnus wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:
The top 3-5 teams in each group keep getting better because the parents that want to keep pushing their DDs migrate to those teams. After a while, the "star starters" on those teams will need to move on again. There are other outlets as the girls get older. (i.e. ODP, ECNL, National Team, elite college programs, professional, etc.)

I applaud you Deep Thoughts on trying to promote a different way of doing things. Unfortunately, the problem in NTX is evidenced by the above statement. We are dealing with U10 players, yet too many of these parents think their kid is going to play D1 college, head straight to the national team & then go pro. Out of all the '02 girls in this area, maybe 3% will play D1, and I will be shocked if even 1 ends up playing on the national team. And when that 1 girl does try out for the national team, I can promise you that part of the tryout will not involve her having to provide her win / loss record or FBR ranking for her U10 team. Everyone needs to remember that this should be about your DD having fun and doing something she enjoys, and not living out your failed sports dreams through your DD.

wilatnus wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:
The top 3-5 teams in each group keep getting better because the parents that want to keep pushing their DDs migrate to those teams. After a while, the "star starters" on those teams will need to move on again. There are other outlets as the girls get older. (i.e. ODP, ECNL, National Team, elite college programs, professional, etc.)

I applaud you Deep Thoughts on trying to promote a different way of doing things. Unfortunately, the problem in NTX is evidenced by the above statement. We are dealing with U10 players, yet too many of these parents think their kid is going to play D1 college, head straight to the national team & then go pro. Out of all the '02 girls in this area, maybe 3% will play D1, and I will be shocked if even 1 ends up playing on the national team. And when that 1 girl does try out for the national team, I can promise you that part of the tryout will not involve her having to provide her win / loss record or FBR ranking for her U10 team. Everyone needs to remember that this should be about your DD having fun and doing something she enjoys, and not living out your failed sports dreams through your DD.

Marvelousmar wrote:As I read through the different comments I found this very entertaining. The ideas on how to develop the group vary by coach and by team. I discussed this issue with my daughter a supper competitive child and her response was that is the crazy. If you want to start you work hard and got to earn it. Not she is the natural in the family and does not work as hard as her brother. Who didn't think the idea cray but agreed with her due to peer pressure. Through a child's eyes. So I think its a good idea and a bad idea how's that for straddling the fence.

deepthoughts wrote:

Marvelousmar wrote:As I read through the different comments I found this very entertaining. The ideas on how to develop the group vary by coach and by team. I discussed this issue with my daughter a supper competitive child and her response was that is the crazy. If you want to start you work hard and got to earn it. Not she is the natural in the family and does not work as hard as her brother. Who didn't think the idea cray but agreed with her due to peer pressure. Through a child's eyes. So I think its a good idea and a bad idea how's that for straddling the fence.

Wow. Asking what your kid thinks and listening carefully to her response! Few parents actually ask -- let alone listen with a truly open mind. Most spend all their time telling the kid how it is and what they must do.

How many of us witness the huge parental tirade after the kid runs off the field happy? By the time they get to the car, the kid is overwhelmed with all that she did wrong and has already forgotten the great cross she put in that assisted her friend in the middle. Instead of happiness, she stares quietly out the window all the way home.

I wonder how many kids would pick sitting on the bench while their parents measure and discuss their "minutes played"and how they must try harder /versus/ playing all the time and having fun with parents that talk about what movie they will go to tonight instead of adjustments to their soccer game.

We should all consider asking more sincere questions, without a ramifications speech regarding their answer, of our kids.

deepthoughts wrote:

Marvelousmar wrote:As I read through the different comments I found this very entertaining. The ideas on how to develop the group vary by coach and by team. I discussed this issue with my daughter a supper competitive child and her response was that is the crazy. If you want to start you work hard and got to earn it. Not she is the natural in the family and does not work as hard as her brother. Who didn't think the idea cray but agreed with her due to peer pressure. Through a child's eyes. So I think its a good idea and a bad idea how's that for straddling the fence.

Wow. Asking what your kid thinks and listening carefully to her response! Few parents actually ask -- let alone listen with a truly open mind. Most spend all their time telling the kid how it is and what they must do.

How many of us witness the huge parental tirade after the kid runs off the field happy? By the time they get to the car, the kid is overwhelmed with all that she did wrong and has already forgotten the great cross she put in that assisted her friend in the middle. Instead of happiness, she stares quietly out the window all the way home.

I wonder how many kids would pick sitting on the bench while their parents measure and discuss their "minutes played"and how they must try harder /versus/ playing all the time and having fun with parents that talk about what movie they will go to tonight instead of adjustments to their soccer game.

We should all consider asking more sincere questions, without a ramifications speech regarding their answer, of our kids.

deepthoughts wrote:

Marvelousmar wrote:As I read through the different comments I found this very entertaining. The ideas on how to develop the group vary by coach and by team. I discussed this issue with my daughter a supper competitive child and her response was that is the crazy. If you want to start you work hard and got to earn it. Not she is the natural in the family and does not work as hard as her brother. Who didn't think the idea cray but agreed with her due to peer pressure. Through a child's eyes. So I think its a good idea and a bad idea how's that for straddling the fence.

Wow. Asking what your kid thinks and listening carefully to her response! Few parents actually ask -- let alone listen with a truly open mind. Most spend all their time telling the kid how it is and what they must do.

How many of us witness the huge parental tirade after the kid runs off the field happy? By the time they get to the car, the kid is overwhelmed with all that she did wrong and has already forgotten the great cross she put in that assisted her friend in the middle. Instead of happiness, she stares quietly out the window all the way home.

I wonder how many kids would pick sitting on the bench while their parents measure and discuss their "minutes played"and how they must try harder /versus/ playing all the time and having fun with parents that talk about what movie they will go to tonight instead of adjustments to their soccer game.

We should all consider asking more sincere questions, without a ramifications speech regarding their answer, of our kids.

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

silentparent wrote:"Why not just switch your DD to rec?

They have rules for this sort of thing if it is critical to you.

This is a serious question... What is the purpose/difference between competitive and rec ball?"


SIGH, 70 posts and that's all you got out of the discussion?

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

wolf2.0 wrote:

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

No. They really aren't. Sometimes they are but I think you've just betrayed your whole mindset right there.

Like a previous poster said, there's always rec if you want equal playing time.

There are a multitude of reasons why some players sit the bench continually:

- Missing practices regularly.
- Lack of effort at practices.
- Going through a slump (happens to pro players too).
- Not as effective as other players ahead of them in their position(s).

When 14 players 'get it' and develop well within a system but 2 do not, the whole system can't be changed because of the 2. The 2 need to find a new home if they can't raise their level. Believe it or not, when 14 do well and 2 can't keep up, it's neither the fault of the 14 or the coach, some players are just out of their depth and that isn't instantly obvious when the kid tries out for the team.

Not all players develop at the same rate or equally over time. Sorry, but there's no room in competitive soccer for the 'no child left behind' philosophy. It dumbed down our education system where everything has to be aimed at the lowest achieving students, we can do without that in competitive sports.