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?

[Skip Towne]

I'm betting somebody slams you on this thread.

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

I'm betting somebody slams you on this thread.

Probably, but I don't have to let them hijack the thread.

[wutamess]

Is there an english translation available somewhere?

[Skip Towne]

Originally Posted by wutamess

Is there an english translation available somewhere?

I dunno, I'll see if Tommykat is home.

[jspchief]

Do kids ever just get to have fun in sports anymore?

[redskin]

I think when it comes to situations like this there is no standard answer. It's up to the parents and the child to determine how much is too much. I work for a recreation department and we struggle with this issue all the time. Some parents think their 6 year old is ready to play in competitive leagues and there are still other parents who don't think their 11 or 12 year olds are ready.

The one thing I hate to see is kids playing competitively that do not have the basic skills or knowledge of the game. If your son has all of those things, then it's really up to you and him to decide what's best.

If there are other kids on the team who are possibly holding your son back, or keeping him from enjoying it more, then maybe it is time for a new team.

[StcChief]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Do kids ever just get to have fun in sports anymore?

Nope. Not as long one of the kids on the team's parent is the coach and
shows favoritism. Instead of skill development.

I gave up on this be competitive in youth sports years ago with my son.

[Katipan]

If a kid grows up being yanked out of hard situations, being told it's ok to settle for being the best on a mediocre team and has a parent that believes kids that suck should be sent to teams that suck, well he just might run for President.

But for sure he's going to be a worthwhile member of society.

[wutamess]

I think you're asking should you let your son stay one of the best on his good team or be the average joe on the best team.

If so, why would you limit your son if there's more he can obtain? It wouldn't take any more out of your time to have him play on the best team so he can possibly be one of the best on that team too.

You're actually teaching him a lesson to settle for medicroty by having everyone float his boat while he's the best on that team.

All throughout my baseball life (been playing since I was 6 and possibly cuold've went pro if I had the patience that's another story) I've been the best on my average teams. But looking back at things I wish my dad would've put me in more competetive leagues or teams because 9 times out of 10 I would've worked to become the best on those teams too if I already wasn't. Plus it'll gave me more exposure to possibly make it to the majors.

I know you're thinking I'm going to live vicariously through my kids but if I'm ever presented with that same example with my kids, I'm going to make all the doors happen if that's what they want to do.

Luckily, I have a 9 yo that likes playing softball because it's the social thing to do. But if she was more serious about it and had a very competitive edge I'd give her what she wanted or a piece of what she could chew. Right now it's making sure she's getting all the proper technique down so that if she ever does want to take this seriously the foundation is atleast there for her to build on. I'm the assistant coach for her team and show no favortism and since she's my daughter I can handle her like I need to instead of baby talking to her like I'd talk with the other kids. What kills me the most is she looks like she's not having fun but she likes being out there. We kid with her every year that we're too broke to sign her up for the team (trying to give her an out) and she basically begs and pleads with us to let her play. Go figure.

Maybe this is something you should ask a male figure instead of looking at it from a woman's point of view. It's just that women 9 times out of 10 don't understand the competitive nature of the male athelete.

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Do kids ever just get to have fun in sports anymore?

Good question. CNN had a special on this very subject awhile back. They said that 75% of kids drop out of youth sports by age 12.

Here is a good article that was recently published.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?...Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

[Katipan]

Originally Posted by wutamess

Maybe this is something you should ask a male figure instead of looking at it from a woman's point of view. It's just that women 9 times out of 10 don't understand the competitive nature of the male athelete.

Because it's somehow more complicated than the competitive nature of the female athlete?

[Rain Man]

Obviously, the best situation is where all of the kids are of similar ability. I've been on teams where I was one of the worst, and that was absolutely miserable, and I've been on teams where I was one of the best, which quite frankly felt good. However, I think it's healthier for a kid to be a solid, valuable contributor with kids at his skill level than to be the "star" of a group of lesser performers. If he's better than everyone else, he has little incentive to keep improving.

The bottom line, though, is that the games are supposed to be fun at that age, and the weak kids won't get better unless they're allowed to play. On most teams, the stronger kids play more, and so they get more playing time, which only increases the difference. 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 remember in third grade, we used to play football at recess. There was one kid who was a very good football player, but he was a ball hog and had "star syndrome." You didn't want him on your team, because he had to be the quarterback and every play had to be a quarterback run. The bottom line was that half the time we ended up with two teams: him and a bunch of kids who didn't know any better, and the rest of us. It was often a lot of fun anyway, because the rest of us were able to put together a very good team, practice plays on a live basis, and have lots of fun as a pretty high-functioning team. Meanwhile, the "star" was always the MVP of his team, and his team almost always lost.

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by Katipan

If a kid grows up being yanked out of hard situations, being told it's ok to settle for being the best on a medicore team and has a parent that believes kids that suck should be sent to teams that suck, well he just might run for President.

But for sure he's going to be a worthwhile member of society.

I agree with this. The teams that we've been on have done their share of winning games and losing them. I can guarantee the loses have generated more introspection, determination, and frustration than the wins have.

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.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by wutamess

I think you're asking should you let your son stay one of the best on his good team or be the average joe on the best team.

If so, why would you limit your son if there's more he can obtain? It wouldn't take any more out of your time to have him play on the best team so he can possibly be one of the best on that team too.

You're actually teaching him a lesson to settle for medicroty by having everyone float his boat while he's the best on that team.

All throughout my baseball life (been playing since I was 6 and possibly cuold've went pro if I had the patience that's another story) I've been the best on my average teams. But looking back at things I wish my dad would've put me in more competive leagues or teams because 9 times out of 10 I would've worked to become the best on those teams too if I already wasn't. Plus it'll gave me more exposure to possibly make it to the majors.

I know you're thinking I'm going to live vicariously through my kids but if I'm ever presented with that same example with my kids, I'mg oing to make all the doors happen if that's what they want to do.

Luckily, I have a 9 yo that likes playing softball because it's the social thing to do. But if she was more serious about it and had a very competitive edge I'd give her what she wanted or a piece of what she could chew.

Maybe this is something you should ask a male figure instead of looking at it from a woman's point of view. It's just that women 9 times out of 10 don't understand the competitive nature of the male athelete.

See, I grew up on the flipside of this. I was a really good baseball player, and my dad entered me in a draft combine where I basically got to skip an age group if drafted. I performed well enough that I did get drafted, and ended up on a team where most the kids were 2 years older than me. There was only one other kid my age, and the only time we got in games was for playing time mandated by the league (maybe 6 outs per game).

It was lame, and I was was so discouraged by it that I quit playing baseball to concentrate on soccer full time.

Sometimes kids just want to enjoy themselves. It's not always about being the best for a 10 year old.