Youth sports talk: any coaches or parents here?

[memyselfI]

My son has played competative soccer for three+ seasons. He's having a great experience. We've been lucky to find good coaching with nice independent clubs. I have felt comfortable having him be one of the best players on a good team vs. having him be a good player on the best team. The reason behind this is because I want to maintain a balance of playing at a competative level but it not take over his life, or ours, as parents.

At what age does this thinking begin to negatively impact his performance? I happen to think that 10 years of age is a little young to be pressuring kids to perform at a more mature level. The literature I've read on this seems to support my thinking and yet you hear of teams that are increasingly demanding more from their players at younger and younger ages.

My other thought was about players who are struggling and might actually impede the team because of the skill level. Are parents doing their child a favor if he clearly is not at the skill set of his teammates? We have this situation on one of our teams, and while I agree that development is most important at this age, is it fair to the team, let alone the player, to have a player like this on the team? Personally, I would pull my son and try to find him a better fit because I think they learn more in situations that allow them to succeed vs. fail.

Thoughts?

[Katipan]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting question.

I think at the higher levels of competition, it's probably true that females and males are both highly competitive and each savors and pursues victory in a similar manner. (However, at the very highest levels, the financial rewards for men are much greater, and of course they get chicks, which is not to be underestimated.)

At the more moderate levels and lower levels, I think women have a bit more choice or more conflict, depending on you line of thinking. A male who doesn't do well at sports is failing at a basic trait of masculinity, which is a bad thing in the viewpoint of many of his peers and of society, however flawed those expectations may be. A female who doesn't do well at sports is behaving in a more classic feminine manner, which is approved by many of her peers and society, however flawed those expectations may be. Therefore, for a male athlete at the lower levels of a sport, his competition in sports is an all-or-nothing, do-or-die deal. He's either good at it and upholds the ideals of masculinity, as well as getting an ego boost, or he's a non-masculine failure. For a female, she can choose (or is forced to choose) between two models: non-feminine sports winner with the ego boost, or feminine non-athlete which is not a bad image in many views. Thus, the casual female athlete has less incentive for success and more internal conflict associated with success.

If you've read this far, submit your name to me and you will receive one hour of college credit in the Sports Psychology program at Rain Man University.

I understand.

You're saying if you don't mind making less money, the ideal sex is female. gotcha.

[wutamess]

Originally Posted by Katipan

you honestly walk around your world thinking 9:10 women are like that?

That was a generalization Kat.
In a conventional household I'd say everything isn't as liberal as you'd think.

9:10 was probably tilting the wheel but 60-40 to 7-30 certainly isn't out of the question.

[Boozer]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

My thinking is that if you don't like your kid playing with kids of lesser ability, move him to a team with kids that have more ability. It'll motivate him to keep getting better, and it will make sure he doesn't get "star syndrome." I think the goal would be to move him to a group where he's in the 75th percentile - good enough to get playing time even if the coach thinks only the "good kids" play, but with other people on the team to push upwards against.

I'll echo this post. You shouldn't keep a kid down to a team where he's always the best player. Give him something to shoot for. About the only reasons I can think to not move him up would be (1) the premier team might be a bad environment (chock full of sicko sports parents) and (2) resources (new team takes too much time, travel costs too much, etc.).

[bkkcoh]

Originally Posted by memyselfI

...
Have I killed his cut throat instinct?

yes

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by memyselfI

You missed the part where I said he has always been one of the better players.

If he wasn't, I definately would try to find him a better fit. Maybe something slightly better than he is vs. completely out of his league...

but that's just me.

Sorry, I skimmed it quickly....I thought you referred to another kid who was in that situation...

As for your kid, his situation sounds fine. As for being worried about the competitive aspect of it, don't...unless it's become a problem for him becoming TOO competitive, TOO obsessed with winning--which would take a lot, IMO. Otherwise, if he's having fun....leave it alone.

[bkkcoh]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

My thinking is that if you don't like your kid playing with kids of lesser ability, move him to a team with kids that have more ability. It'll motivate him to keep getting better, and it will make sure he doesn't get "star syndrome." I think the goal would be to move him to a group where he's in the 75th percentile - good enough to get playing time even if the coach thinks only the "good kids" play, but with other people on the team to push upwards against.

But then eventually, her kid will be one of the lesser talents on the team... and then how would she be at that point??

[Katipan]

Originally Posted by wutamess

That was a generalization Kat.
In a conventional household I'd say everything isn't as liberal as you'd think.

9:10 was probably tilting the wheel but 60-40 to 7-30 certainly isn't out of the question.

I'm certainly bred to nurture.
But I'm also bred to be the best damn nurturer on the block.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Katipan

I understand.

You're saying if you don't mind making less money, the ideal sex is female. gotcha.

Keep in mind that you people never pay for dates, though, so it more or less evens out.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Katipan

I dunno. At that age boys want to win everything. Compare a normal boy to a normal girl and the boy just may have the ingrained urge to beat her at everything. Compare a female athlete to a male athlete and no one is going to convince me he has a higher understanding of the sweet caress of victory.

Girls just dont act like raving lunatics. Doesn't mean they don't want to win.

And I'm certainly not talking about the girls playing volleyball so they can get out of 6th period.

With female college athletes, I'd agree.

High school and younger; there's a marked difference in the level of competitiveness between girls and boys, in my experience. SOME girls....the ones who also will probably compete in college, no; on average though, yes....IMHO.

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting question.

I A male who doesn't do well at sports is failing at a basic trait of masculinity, which is a bad thing in the viewpoint of many of his peers and of society, however flawed those expectations may be. A female who doesn't do well at sports is behaving in a more classic feminine manner, which is approved by many of her peers and society, however flawed those expectations may be. Therefore, for a male athlete at the lower levels of a sport, his competition in sports is an all-or-nothing, do-or-die deal. He's either good at it and upholds the ideals of masculinity, as well as getting an ego boost, or he's a non-masculine failure (in the eyes of some/many). For a female, she can choose (or is forced to choose) between two models: non-feminine sports winner with the ego boost of success, or feminine non-athlete, which is not a bad image in some/many views. Thus, the casual female athlete has less incentive for success and more internal conflict associated with success.

I actually agree with this on an archetypal level. It's an unconscious element of the human psyche that seems to have transcended culture, generations, and race.

But with the knowledge that there is only one 'champion' at most sports, shouldn't there also be an appreciation and love of the game that transcends competition? Is it wrong to encourage your child just to play because they love doing it? Must one be indoctrinating their child to win or don't bother?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

He's ten you said? I'm sure he's figured out his mom is batshit insane by now. I wouldn't worry about it.

So true....heh. I began ignoring my mom, pretty much.....right around age 10.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

Sometimes I make my dates pay their own way.

This turns my whole theory onto its ear.

[wutamess]

Originally Posted by Katipan

I'm certainly bred to nurture.
But I'm also bred to be the best damn nurturer on the block.

You sound like a great nurturer in deed. And you seem so competitive at it. Maybe you should move away from the shitfaced Independence, MO drunk & do some nurturing in Raytown.

Sorry Delt, a man has needs.

~Mr. Competitive.

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Sorry, I skimmed it quickly....I thought you referred to another kid who was in that situation...

As for your kid, his situation sounds fine. As for being worried about the competitive aspect of it, don't...unless it's become a problem for him becoming TOO competitive, TOO obsessed with winning--which would take a lot, IMO. Otherwise, if he's having fun....leave it alone.

He's having a ball...no pun intended. I'm more concerned that we are doing what is best for him at this age and juncture than how he's feeling because he's fine.

I guess my concern is, can you turn off the cut throat and forget how to turn it back on?

This wasn't really even an issue until I saw these parents leaving their kid on a team that he clearly should not have made in the first place. I've heard they complain about his playing time. I've tried to put myself in their shoes and I don't think I could leave him on a team where he clearly over his head. But then I've not been there so how would I know? We have tried to do what was best for him right NOW.

I guess my fear might be that not challenging him enough at this age might catch up with us later. Maybe these parents are doing their kid a favor in some weird way.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by memyselfI

....We certainly wouldn't stay on a team that 'sucked.' But at age 10 is good, or 'mediocre', a bad place to be? Is 2nd or 3rd place out of 10 teams actually settling?

I'm thinking by the time he's in JR. high the focus of being on one of the best teams would be more appropriate.

FWIW, I have a 10 yr old and have had similar thoughts, but....IMO you are worrying about nothing, at this age.....yeah, they want to win, and winning is important...but HS is when the pressure really starts to mount. Even then, depending on the "program" and the history of the program....in high school sports can still be primarily social--with Football and boys basketball, being the two notable exceptions.