I've had a great response to the article. It turns out, unsurprisingly, that there are a great many parents out there in the same boat. In England, the rule for many clubs seems to be that if you're good enough, you get to play in the coach's team, but if you're not good enough you don't get to play at all. This is because coaches have league teams and they want to do well in their league. In many cases that priority is given more weight than the desire to help improve the skills of the player who doesn't quite make the squad.   

So how is that going to help get our kids away from the games console or the TV? How does that help the average kid who knows he's never going to be Steven Gerrard but REALLY WANTS TO PLAY? How is that going to help us develop our national game?

I'm really interested to hear about the following:

anyone else have shared experiences or views on this?

how are these issues handled in other countries?

what can we do about it?

That article:

"Dear Coach,

My son was recently informed that he was surplus to requirements in our local Under 10s team. The league only allows for the registration of 14 players and the coach isn't prepared to have other boys train with them. He's concerned that this has a negative impact on the performance of the team and his stated priority is to do well in the league. This means that my son can't play in his local side with his friends (at least half of the team come from other villages).

He's realistic about his soccer abilities and knows that he doesn't quite cut the mustard - yet. I've explained to him that he's only nine years old and that one day he may well leapfrog his peers. I've also explained that he might not, and he understands that. He knows that he might never be a particularly good soccer player and he doesn't really care. He loves the game and he just wants to play. Isn't that what's great about soccer? Anyone can play.

Luckily, I was able to get him a place with another village team, about a 20 minute drive from home. This team embodies all that can be really good about youth coaching. They are entirely inclusive. Anyone who comes to training gets to play in the matches. They have opted out of their local competitive league to focus on training with the occasional friendly match. Their coaching sessions are of an extremely high standard. The players (and coaches and parents) clearly have a great time every Saturday morning. My son is happy. He's making a new set of friends and he is improving rapidly as a player.

The coaches who run this team are an example to us all. Their priority is to give the players who come to them an education in soccer. They want their players to have fun and improve. They are not interested in how well they do in the league. For these guys, it's about the players - not the coach."

Dwyer

My village is located near to Birmingham and close to to two large towns, the villages local junior teams were full of players from the above mentioned places so we had a number of lads who werent deemed good enough for either any of the teams from our local team or any clubs from the surrounding towns.

 So we decided to form a team for these players. We joined a league at under 13 level so we were playing catch up as most of the teams had been together since under 8. The first few seasons were a struggle but we have developed well.

 I think the problem is kids get disheartened with losing so its not only about coaches being selfish although i know some can be but there is a certain pressure off parents and players to try and achieve results. It isnt about results but human nature means losing frequently causes heads to drop and certain players to lose interest. The difficult one is keeping good players happy by making the team a certain standard and lesser players happy by giving them the chance.

 With how kids develop differently i think everyone upto 14 / 15 years of age should be kept equal because so called lesser players at 9 / 10 could have developed excellently by their mid teens. 

 I think there should be more weekend football schools for youngsters without teams. As you have said before about teams who just run sessions and have odd friendlies now and again. Its something i am looking to go back into once my team finishes at the end of this season at under 18's.

This season has been our first in the league, even though we've been together for 4 seasons now. We won our first 4 games and our 5th was against one of the league's strongest, favorites to win the league. The game was evenly contested and we were doing really well and were 1-1 at half time and could have been 3 or 4 up in front.

Just after half time, I made some changes to get my 3 subs on, even though I knew I was weakening the team - and guess what, we lost 4-1. Their coach couldn't believe they won and felt the score wasn't reflected of us. My own lad played in goals and as you can imagine, wasn't too happy with "Dad" after we lost.

However, what this did for me was invaluable.

Firstly, it taught my players that they can't win all games and it's unrealistic, (but it's not unrealistic to want to win and to try to win !)

Secondly, they realize that it's a team game and we are only as good as our weakest link, so we ALL need to help each other and protect and help the weakest player.

My parents give me full support and understand and know what I'm trying to do, in developing for the long term and give all a chance.

It was clear that had I not changed the team, we'd have probably won - but then again, it's no guarantee we would. Had I not changed the team, I'd have ran the risk of upsetting 3 players, probably humiliated them or made them feel humiliated. I would have also alienated their parents.

And had I done this, what would I have got  - a 5th victoy - so what ! We may have won a game but ultimately, turned off 3 players.

Next year, we move into 11 a side - can I afford to do this with a squad of 13?

Also, can I afford to not play weak players - otherwise, how can they ever learn/develop?

My "strong" players, weren't that strong 3 years ago - but have got stronger, as they have had 3 years experience of playing, so my long term aim, is to develop 13 players so all can contribute to the game - so hopefully we win more than we lose, but also leaving each with a good experience and hopefully develop some skills to enable them to keep playing, like me, well into middle age.

I'm realistic to know that of the 13, I have maybe, just maybe 1 who has the natural ability to "make it" - but it's a long long path to travel and there is no guarantee - but what I can say with confidence, is that I think I'll have 6/7 who will still be playing football when I'm a pensioner, watching park football in 20 years time.

My philosphy is that we aim to win, but winning isn't everything- what is important, is that all give their best, try hard, enjoy it and seek to learn/develop for future years  - afterall it's an U10's league - not Champions League - and before anyone thinks I'm not a winner - come watch me play in my 11 a side Saturday afternoon and 5 a side league match midweek  - I was brought up pre-PC (no, not personal computer !) and learnt my football the old fashioned way - but don't need to repeat this style with my kids.

I'm nearly 40 yrs old and having played competitive football since I was 8 - I've come to learn and understand the difference about winning and playing.. As Adults we understand "it's only a game" - as a child, it can be confusing if they take a lasse faire attitude to a game then don't understand why the coach/players are annoyed that they lost.

After playing for some 32 yrs, I think I know the difference - however my 9/10 yrs don't yet - so it's important that ALL play and get to play, otherwise they won't develop, improve.

At the end of the day, its simple - we the coaches, aren't playing, the kids are, so see it from their perspective...if you have any angst that you want to get rid of, do what I do - play twice weekly !

J
http://www.the-soccer-tutor.com

Its a touchy subject but as a parent, my boy who is currently 3, my dream is for him to play for the club I am with but if he isnt as good as the other boys then I will move him to a smaller club where he can get regular games.

Up to and including U10 each club is responsible for providing a "house-league" for their yoputh program. This emans that they get as many kids as they can from their appointed geographic area, split them into teams (hopefully with equal mix of players skiklls) and play each other. No leagues, no cuops, just playing for teh fun - whilst learning to play soccer, work as a team, buid, fitness, committment etc

At U11 they start playing aginst teams from other clubs - still everyone mixed into the pot. At U12 and above the teams get tiered in separate leagues based on skill level - Gold, Silver and Bronze. So, for instance, my club has 3 teams at U14 - one of each colour, and all 3 play in a separate leagues with teams of similar skill. 

A kid is NEVER turned away from a club - they will always find a spot for him/her somewhere. At U11 and younger it will be on a team where they know someone, at U12 and above it will be on a team with simliar skill levels.

Another difference is our use of subs - we have rotating subs at all levels of play. Players can come and go as necessary (during stoppages in play) which means we don't have bench warmers. All the kids get to have equal time on the field - we have kids playing soccer.

Wanting to win is natural at any age - when I started coaching (U5's) they all wanted to know what the score was but it was quickly forgotten. At U13 and above they are playing in a competition with league winners, cups, progression to the Provincial Championships etc at stake.

Maybe our way is a reason why we still struggle as a competive nation at the international level - but Owen Hargreaves seemed to do Ok with that system. Soccer is now the biggest sport in Canada in terms of the number of kids playing. More than Ice Hockey!

My point is that we should be gearing the system to suit all kids - not just the elite who can run rings around people. Instill a love of the game into the kids - not just for the growth of soccer but as a way of showing them that exercise and participating in a team can be fun!! A good lesson for anyone to learn.

However a part of me which i cant seem to ignore disagrees with this.

Assuming we are talking about a team in the top league.

Is it really wrong for a coach to stop playing players who are clearly not at the same level as the rest of his team? In reality i dont think it is unfair.

Maybe the real issue is that the player should be moved to a team who are similar level and playing in a league which is at his/her level.

Why should a coach play someone who is clearly going to struggle when he comes on. It should be as much the parents responsibility to recognise why the child is not playing as much as the rest of the team.

We would all love everyone to be at the same level and have players of all abilities in the same team but at what age do we start being competetive, when do we seperate the good players who could go on and become professional with the guys who are playing for fun. The longer we leave it the more damage we are doing to the players with potential by holding them back. 

Yes i am maybe being harsh but its something that crosses my mind when this issue is raised.