Uncoachable kids

[Unregistered]

parent and coach

Someone mentioned ADD. I've witnessed too many gym teacher/football coach guys who write kids off because the kids can't stand in line and listen to lectures with military precision, when some kids are actually physically incapable of sitting still. What some kids need is to run around and channel their energy in a positive direction (ie, sports). Coaches are teachers, and kids learn in different ways. A really "good" coach can teach in the way that individual kids learn.

So while I agree with the general sentiments about too much coddling of the little superstars, I think often the blame should go the other way.

As a coach, I consider it my failure when I can't connect with a kid, and brandishing the kid as uncoachable is just a cop-out to shift blame for the failure. Admittedly, there are some kids I haven't been able to connect with, and my experience is that these kids are usually taking direction from another coach (their parent). At that point, I might give up, but only after giving it the old college try (I never want to give up on a kid because of his parent).

Sadly I think you are more of an exception. Many kids are written off quickly for many reasons. It explains just part of the frequent club hopping - sometimes kids have to move because a coach/club has pigeonholed them. And bravo to you for trying to ignore the parents for the sake of the player. Some parents truly are a pain in the *****. Coaches don't get paid enough to deal with them. Teachers either. I know I could coach just about any kid without giving up but I don't think I could keep my mouth shut with the parents.

[Unregistered]

The civil war was actually about Federalism and its enumerated powers. Slavery was merely an ancillary issue. But the victors, not the losers, write the history.

I suppose you were educated in Texas.

[Unregistered]

parent and coach

I am a parent and a HS coach. Thru the years I have coached several people that are difficult to deal with, and there parents are typically worse. The good thing is, the players are only welcome on my squad if they are willing to follow the rules, do the right thing etc...with proper expectations MOST kids can pull it together. I have had some kids that just don't get "it" and in the end, they don't play soccer for me and typically quit. Any kid that can't pull it together in my program typically has much bigger issues than soccer and they should focus on them. It would be better if they could use soccer as an ******.

Coaches, refs, ADs etc... all put up with way to much crap. Follow the rules, do the right thing or get the hell off my squad! That said, I am thankful that I don't have any headcases that I know about going into 2015 :)

[Unregistered]

I suppose you were educated in Texas.

No, Ivy league actually, 2 degrees, but had to sift through the garbage to get to the truth. Ignorance is no excuse, friend. Learn your history and you can better understand today.

[Unregistered]

I would classify Howard Zinn as a loser...

Have you heard of Eric Foner or David Brion Davis?

Anyway, keep flying your segregationist-era Confederate--ahem, "states rights"--flag.

[Unregistered]

expectations

parent and coach

Someone mentioned ADD. I've witnessed too many gym teacher/football coach guys who write kids off because the kids can't stand in line and listen to lectures with military precision, when some kids are actually physically incapable of sitting still. What some kids need is to run around and channel their energy in a positive direction (ie, sports). Coaches are teachers, and kids learn in different ways. A really "good" coach can teach in the way that individual kids learn.

So while I agree with the general sentiments about too much coddling of the little superstars, I think often the blame should go the other way.

As a coach, I consider it my failure when I can't connect with a kid, and brandishing the kid as uncoachable is just a cop-out to shift blame for the failure. Admittedly, there are some kids I haven't been able to connect with, and my experience is that these kids are usually taking direction from another coach (their parent). At that point, I might give up, but only after giving it the old college try (I never want to give up on a kid because of his parent).

As posted, you really have to put an age on this topic and realize that there is overlap and variability within each age group. Once age is identified, you can start to look at Piaget and Erikson regarding developmental levels and expectations. I wouldn't bother to bring Freud into this topic.....just doesn't really apply evenly.
Eriksons stages are probably more appropriate and identifies 6-12 as an industry/inferiorty period involving mastering of skills, inferiority complexes, peer development, and social incorporation. After 12 is the identity period when self image develops and autonomy starts to be desired and recognized.

To say someone is uncoachable between 9 and 14 is certainly difficult in the absence of a diagnosed behavioral dysfunction or even a recognition that there are family issues. For the many of these kids, behavioral modification is all that is needed which might include involvement in physical activities. For any of the players including the highest functioning kids down-time on the field may not be the best way to coach. Keeping kids moving keeps then learning, developing, and less likely to cause trouble.

That said, if a kid is not able to cooperate within the community (team, class, etc) then an evaluation should occur and methods of behavioral modification instituted. This includes incorporation of the whole family. I do understand that a coach, of 18 kids perhaps more than one team, should not be expected to spend an inordinate amount of time with one kid while ignoring the rest.

[Unregistered]

As posted, you really have to put an age on this topic and realize that there is overlap and variability within each age group. Once age is identified, you can start to look at Piaget and Erikson regarding developmental levels and expectations. I wouldn't bother to bring Freud into this topic.....just doesn't really apply evenly.
Eriksons stages are probably more appropriate and identifies 6-12 as an industry/inferiorty period involving mastering of skills, inferiority complexes, peer development, and social incorporation. After 12 is the identity period when self image develops and autonomy starts to be desired and recognized.

To say someone is uncoachable between 9 and 14 is certainly difficult in the absence of a diagnosed behavioral dysfunction or even a recognition that there are family issues. For the many of these kids, behavioral modification is all that is needed which might include involvement in physical activities. For any of the players including the highest functioning kids down-time on the field may not be the best way to coach. Keeping kids moving keeps then learning, developing, and less likely to cause trouble.

That said, if a kid is not able to cooperate within the community (team, class, etc) then an evaluation should occur and methods of behavioral modification instituted. This includes incorporation of the whole family. I do understand that a coach, of 18 kids perhaps more than one team, should not be expected to spend an inordinate amount of time with one kid while ignoring the rest.

When is the final?

[Unregistered]

No, Ivy league actually, 2 degrees, but had to sift through the garbage to get to the truth. Ignorance is no excuse, friend. Learn your history and you can better understand today.

You can spin you states rights, lost cause BS if it make you feel better; it doesn't change the fact the states right the confederacy was fighting for was the right to own slaves.

[Unregistered]

Thanks

No, Ivy league actually, 2 degrees, but had to sift through the garbage to get to the truth. Ignorance is no excuse, friend. Learn your history and you can better understand today.

Normally, i would find politics annoying on a soccer thread, but this one is very interesting.

What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?

A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.
In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.
A key issue was states' rights.
The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.
Another factor was territorial expansion.
The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.
Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.
The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.
Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.


In other words, if it wasn't for the republican party, we might have a split continental US and a longer history of slavery. I suppose African Americans should be thanking the republican party and voting for them since history would tell us that they seem to care more about Black Lives than any other party!!!!

[Unregistered]

Normally, i would find politics annoying on a soccer thread, but this one is very interesting....

...I suppose African Americans should be thanking the republican party and voting for them since history would tell us that they seem to care more about Black Lives than any other party!!!!

If that's the best you can do, you should stop ignorantly supposing.

Believe it or not, there's been radical discontinuity in political parties over the last 150 years--most notably, when segregationist Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party after the establishment Democratic Party turned away from Jim Crow, which was around the same time Southern states started flying the Confederate flag.

And African Americans don't need to thank anyone for ending slavery, let alone "thanking" in perpetuity. European Americans should be doing the thanking for the end of an utter abomination that is the profoundest moral disgrace to their ancestors, including slaveholding Founding Fathers.

But carry on with your convenient, willful delusions. I'm out.

[Unregistered]

If that's the best you can do, you should stop ignorantly supposing.

Believe it or not, there's been radical discontinuity in political parties over the last 150 years--most notably, when segregationist Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party after the establishment Democratic Party turned away from Jim Crow, which was around the same time Southern states started flying the Confederate flag.

And African Americans don't need to thank anyone for ending slavery, let alone "thanking" in perpetuity. European Americans should be doing the thanking for the end of an utter abomination that is the profoundest moral disgrace to their ancestors, including slaveholding Founding Fathers.

But carry on with your convenient, willful delusions. I'm out.

As a conservative, relatively speaking, I can agree with the first half of your statement. As to the second I quote a wise old history professor who stated, "Never judge the behavior of the past by the morals of the present."

[Unregistered]

Normally, i would find politics annoying on a soccer thread, but this one is very interesting.

What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?

A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.
In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.
A key issue was states' rights.
The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.
Another factor was territorial expansion.
The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.
Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.
The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.
Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.


In other words, if it wasn't for the republican party, we might have a split continental US and a longer history of slavery. I suppose African Americans should be thanking the republican party and voting for them since history would tell us that they seem to care more about Black Lives than any other party!!!!

If you believe that the Republican party of the 1800's and the one of today have the same views and agendas then you are the one with the problem. You are stupid, crazy or delusional. I don't really care which one, but you need to just sit down and stop talking.

[Unregistered]

If you believe that the Republican party of the 1800's and the one of today have the same views and agendas then you are the one with the problem. You are stupid, crazy or delusional. I don't really care which one, but you need to just sit down and stop talking.

I don't think that todays republican party is that much different in that if you earn it then you deserve it, but you shouldn't get everything or anything for free unless everyone is going to get it for free i.e. we are equal and don't owe any particular group more than another. To treat groups differently is racism.

[Unregistered]

As posted, you really have to put an age on this topic and realize that there is overlap and variability within each age group. Once age is identified, you can start to look at Piaget and Erikson regarding developmental levels and expectations. I wouldn't bother to bring Freud into this topic.....just doesn't really apply evenly.
Eriksons stages are probably more appropriate and identifies 6-12 as an industry/inferiorty period involving mastering of skills, inferiority complexes, peer development, and social incorporation. After 12 is the identity period when self image develops and autonomy starts to be desired and recognized.

To say someone is uncoachable between 9 and 14 is certainly difficult in the absence of a diagnosed behavioral dysfunction or even a recognition that there are family issues. For the many of these kids, behavioral modification is all that is needed which might include involvement in physical activities. For any of the players including the highest functioning kids down-time on the field may not be the best way to coach. Keeping kids moving keeps then learning, developing, and less likely to cause trouble.

That said, if a kid is not able to cooperate within the community (team, class, etc) then an evaluation should occur and methods of behavioral modification instituted. This includes incorporation of the whole family. I do understand that a coach, of 18 kids perhaps more than one team, should not be expected to spend an inordinate amount of time with one kid while ignoring the rest.

I would narrow your age range from 9 - 12. I find that some 13 and 14 year boys have that middle school attitude and our very hard to coach. Our second best player on our travel team is a jerk on our team and walked off the field on his coach in middle school.

When screwing around in practice and told to do a lap, he walks it.

As a volunteer coach, to be in a power struggle for control with a 13 year old sucks. He will go no where in life.

[Unregistered]

easy fix

send his butt home the next time he walks. Let him know he can come back to the next practice and run his lap at that time...if he walks then, send his butt home...get my point?

I would narrow your age range from 9 - 12. I find that some 13 and 14 year boys have that middle school attitude and our very hard to coach. Our second best player on our travel team is a jerk on our team and walked off the field on his coach in middle school.

When screwing around in practice and told to do a lap, he walks it.

As a volunteer coach, to be in a power struggle for control with a 13 year old sucks. He will go no where in life.