is this letter fair?

[Unregistered]

First: Almost all "development" takes place outside of practice. Depending on age level and level of play I typically got kids 3 or 4.5 hours a week for practice. During that time we would work mostly on technical skill development, but to a particular technical skill requires repetition that cannot be had in practice so you have to teach kids how to work on skills on their own or with a buddy or two. Kids learn technical skills at different rates and are better at some than others. Almost no one has any specific technical skill down perfectly so spending time as a team on those technical skill that most of the kids need to work on is still going to worthwhile for every player. But, individually, players will need to focus most of their time and attention on improving those technical skills where they are weakest relative to the position(s) that they may play. As a team we might do 30 repetitions of a skill in practice that your kid needs to really work on. The other 1470 repetitions that are needed to become competent at that skill need to be done outside of team practice.

Second: It is not a question of equal playing time. It is a question of getting every kid substantive playing time in every game. My goal is always at least half of every game. It does not always work out for a variety of reasons, but almost always it can be done. Different positions will have different physical demands, and so substitution requirements will differ.


Third: You say that playing time is earned by working hard, not skipping practices, having a good attitude. To that I say, "great", but almost invariably the kids who work the hardest, have the best attitudes and are always on time are my weakest players. Should I not play my "better" players, because they have not "earned" playing time like my weaker players? I would note that it is a common coaching challenge to get your most physically talented players to work hard on improving their technical skills when, for example, if they are a forward they can beat most defenders 1v1 using their speed.

Fourth: Playing time concern do not arise if you are careful at tryouts. As I have said in other posts -- do not take a player unless you are sure they can play at the team's competitive level. Then you are able to play every player in every game. Easy. And, frankly, it is not hard to work kids into a game so that they get half a game or more. It's not rocket science. "Oh no - we had a back up in at wing defender and they gave up a cross that lead to a goal." Of course, the same play could well have happened against your "better" defendant, but setting that aside -- where was the mid who allowed the play to get deep for a cross? Where was your forward who allowed the transition? Why were my center defenders unable to defend the cross? Why was my keeper caught out? And, why did it matter any way -- what went on the rest of the game that kept us from scoring enough to win? What did I do wrong as a coach in not getting the team in a better position to win? Or, maybe, the opponents were just better than us.

Get everyone lots of playing time and both the individual players, and the team, will be better, and have more fun.

This is well-reasoned and fair. Thanks for sharing.

[Unregistered]

Third: You say that playing time is earned by working hard, not skipping practices, having a good attitude. To that I say, "great", but almost invariably the kids who work the hardest, have the best attitudes and are always on time are my weakest players. .

Sounds like you are not a very good coach, not reaching the best players to take them to the next levels. The best coaches know how to motivate the best players.

[Unregistered]

Sounds like you are not a very good coach, not reaching the best players to take them to the next levels. The best coaches know how to motivate the best players.

Sounds like you are the parent of a lousy player who will find any way possible to attack those that are connected in any way to club soccer. I'm sorry that your kid is not very good. Perhaps you chose the club and team to place her with very poorly. Or, perhaps she was so weak that you were left with only a few terrible choices. I hope you didn't spend a fortune on this, as opposed to a good SAT tutor.

- not a coach

[Unregistered]

Sounds like you are the parent of a lousy player who will find any way possible to attack those that are connected in any way to club soccer. I'm sorry that your kid is not very good. Perhaps you chose the club and team to place her with very poorly. Or, perhaps she was so weak that you were left with only a few terrible choices. I hope you didn't spend a fortune on this, as opposed to a good SAT tutor.

- not a coach

What kind of moronic coach admits that he "invariably" can't motivate the better players?

[Unregistered]

What kind of moronic coach admits that he "invariably" can't motivate the better players?

An honest one. The best players' motivation comes from within.

[Unregistered]

An honest one. The best players' motivation comes from within.

Exactly. There are plenty of "best players" out there that do not give max effort time and time again. To say otherwise, it simply denial of the obvious.

[Unregistered]

An honest one. The best players' motivation comes from within.

Of course, but this loser coach said his better players weren't motivated:

"the kids who work the hardest, have the best attitudes and are always on time are my weakest players."

[Unregistered]

Of course, but this loser coach said his better players weren't motivated:

"the kids who work the hardest, have the best attitudes and are always on time are my weakest players."

A coach can only go so far. At a certain point it's no longer about hard work but genetics/natural ability. If they don't have the skills, no matter how hard they work, then a different level may be more appropriate. Cold hard truth that many parents aren't willing to accept.

[Unregistered]

A coach can only go so far. At a certain point it's no longer about hard work but genetics/natural ability. If they don't have the skills, no matter how hard they work, then a different level may be more appropriate. Cold hard truth that many parents aren't willing to accept.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. He said that his *best*, most skilled players weren't motivated. Cold hard truth is that he sounds like an absolutely horrible coach.

[Unregistered]

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. He said that his *best*, most skilled players weren't motivated. Cold hard truth is that he sounds like an absolutely horrible coach.

Unfortunately he will stay an employed coach because those better players - lazy or not - will get him wins. Club is happy, parents of players with decent PT are happy, and he keeps his job for another year.

[Unregistered]

I coach. And I can testify that if you don't win enough games parents will take their kids somewhere else. But on the other hand, if you don't play kids enough, the parents will take their kids somewhere else. So you have to balance this. You may ask, well why not just let the kids who don't play well leave, since they have to ride the bench more than the "stars"? The answer is (1.) the team needs depth and (2.) tomorrow's bench riders might be tomorrow's stars.

The irony is that most people think that the coach's "must win" attitude is a defensive measure to keep people from leaving the team. Some parents think wins are more important than development.

In a like manner, most parents don't realize that when a coach wants to win...even (sadly) because of their own ego...they often realize that winning stems from developing the players. You can't just recruit, recruit, recruit. If you having a winning team this year and you don't develop your team, you won't have a winning team next year. I'm saying a coach's desire to win, and a coach's commitment to development are not opposites. To the smart coach, they are tied together.

Lastly, kids sometimes know that they aren't strong players, despite the coach's best efforts. I've had kids who didn't want to play in an important game because they wanted their team to win more than their own playing time. Poorly playing kids can be surprisingly OK with less playing times in important games if it puts the outcome of the game in jeopardy. Most kids would rather play half a game and win, than play the whole game and lose.

So the original post is accurate. There is a lot going on.

[Unregistered]

If so then run, don't walk. NEVER works, inherent conflict of interest.

Ugh. Tell me about it! Our club has run amok. It is HORRIBLE

[Unregistered]

When someone writes a declaration like this makes you wonder why?

I don't like the "only talk to the player" as thats a power dynamic there depending on age group. Anything U13 or under I would disagree with that tactic.

I do agree not on game day with kid or parent.


I've never argued with a coach over my kids playing team but I did leave a club over it.

I always tell other parents if you don't think coach values your daughter/son then leave. Eventually you will find a good spot for them

No reason to get into these huge debates with coaches.

Fact is, Coaches are no different than parents. There are good ones and bad. Some that do good jobs, some that don't know squat.

Keep looking if your kids not getting what they're looking for.

[Unregistered]

I coach. And I can testify that if you don't win enough games parents will take their kids somewhere else. But on the other hand, if you don't play kids enough, the parents will take their kids somewhere else. So you have to balance this. You may ask, well why not just let the kids who don't play well leave, since they have to ride the bench more than the "stars"? The answer is (1.) the team needs depth and (2.) tomorrow's bench riders might be tomorrow's stars.

The irony is that most people think that the coach's "must win" attitude is a defensive measure to keep people from leaving the team. Some parents think wins are more important than development.

In a like manner, most parents don't realize that when a coach wants to win...even (sadly) because of their own ego...they often realize that winning stems from developing the players. You can't just recruit, recruit, recruit. If you having a winning team this year and you don't develop your team, you won't have a winning team next year. I'm saying a coach's desire to win, and a coach's commitment to development are not opposites. To the smart coach, they are tied together.

Lastly, kids sometimes know that they aren't strong players, despite the coach's best efforts. I've had kids who didn't want to play in an important game because they wanted their team to win more than their own playing time. Poorly playing kids can be surprisingly OK with less playing times in important games if it puts the outcome of the game in jeopardy. Most kids would rather play half a game and win, than play the whole game and lose.

So the original post is accurate. There is a lot going on.

Our son was one of those bench club players at U10, U11 and U12 who stayed at his same club, working hard and attending all practices. He also did a lot on his own to improve and constantly focused on his technique. He's now a U15 who is one of the stars of his team and we never would have expected it given how he struggled when he was younger. I think it surprised him more than anyone, and he appreciates everything regarding soccer and because he was slow and spacey on the field when he was little (not that we told him that). He is really happy where he is because he had to work for it. Nothing came easy for him. For him, he listened to the coaches about how and why he needed to get better. Sometimes you've got to be open to what they are saying.

Some of those same kids who were stars on his team at those younger ages are no longer stars, and the parent complaints are kicking in. Coaches have a lot of great feedback and in our case our son listened to them and focused on where he needed to improve. The letter posted by the OP seems quite fair. I don't think coaches sit in some ivory tower, laughing like Dr Evil, as they plot and scheme our demise. Yes I've witnessed some coaches who were bad, and you'll find bad workers in every profession. But for the most part, we've seen coaches who care a lot and who also recognize that there are a lot of kids who want to be there and want to get better. The kids get out what they put in, and sometimes they/we don't like what the coaches are saying, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.

[Unregistered]

Our son was one of those bench club players at U10, U11 and U12 who stayed at his same club, working hard and attending all practices. He also did a lot on his own to improve and constantly focused on his technique. He's now a U15 who is one of the stars of his team and we never would have expected it given how he struggled when he was younger. I think it surprised him more than anyone, and he appreciates everything regarding soccer and because he was slow and spacey on the field when he was little (not that we told him that). He is really happy where he is because he had to work for it. Nothing came easy for him. For him, he listened to the coaches about how and why he needed to get better. Sometimes you've got to be open to what they are saying.

Some of those same kids who were stars on his team at those younger ages are no longer stars, and the parent complaints are kicking in. Coaches have a lot of great feedback and in our case our son listened to them and focused on where he needed to improve. The letter posted by the OP seems quite fair. I don't think coaches sit in some ivory tower, laughing like Dr Evil, as they plot and scheme our demise. Yes I've witnessed some coaches who were bad, and you'll find bad workers in every profession. But for the most part, we've seen coaches who care a lot and who also recognize that there are a lot of kids who want to be there and want to get better. The kids get out what they put in, and sometimes they/we don't like what the coaches are saying, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.

Thank you and continued success to your son-hard work almost always pays off.