TEXAS BOYS SOCCER FORUM

CHECK OUT THE NEW TXSOCCER GROUP ON FACEBOOK....come join now!
Visit the Girls Forum at:   www.txsoccer.net
** PLEASE START NEW THREADS WITH AGE GROUP **

Top posters

omega striker (2075)
 
go99 (2013)
 
finish1 (1427)
 
Axxman (982)
 
my2cents (816)
 
The German (815)
 
Ibystander (766)
 
plantit (687)
 
soccerrus2 (647)
 
gababa (572)
 

May 2012

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Calendar Calendar

Rss feeds

Yahoo! 
Google Reader 
MSN 
AOL 
NewsGator 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 

    Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Share

    soccersoccersoccer

    Posts: 25
    Join date: 2010-05-13

    Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  soccersoccersoccer on Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:41 pm

    Our team has decided to go with14 on the roster this year. Picked up #15 and #16 last year last minute and did not prove to help us at all. Boys seemed to do better at the games we only had a sub or 2, we def played better when our core 11 were on the field. I know the argument against this may be less team money or what if a few injuries happen. I think Barcelona only had 13 last year and they did very well. Our boys strong point is endurance so hopefully this works out for us!

    RedBaron

    Posts: 31
    Join date: 2009-06-29
    Location: Looking for 81

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  RedBaron on Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:02 am

    soccersoccersoccer wrote:Our team has decided to go with14 on the roster this year. Picked up #15 and #16 last year last minute and did not prove to help us at all. Boys seemed to do better at the games we only had a sub or 2, we def played better when our core 11 were on the field. I know the argument against this may be less team money or what if a few injuries happen. I think Barcelona only had 13 last year and they did very well. Our boys strong point is endurance so hopefully this works out for us!


    OUTSTANDING. This means you had players playing the game and NOT sitting on the bench. Personally, would LOVE to see max roster of 14 through U17. Let the kids PLAY!

    The German

    Posts: 815
    Join date: 2009-06-21
    Location: Far far from home

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  The German on Sat Jul 03, 2010 7:11 am

    RedBaron wrote:
    soccersoccersoccer wrote:Our team has decided to go with14 on the roster this year. Picked up #15 and #16 last year last minute and did not prove to help us at all. Boys seemed to do better at the games we only had a sub or 2, we def played better when our core 11 were on the field. I know the argument against this may be less team money or what if a few injuries happen. I think Barcelona only had 13 last year and they did very well. Our boys strong point is endurance so hopefully this works out for us!


    OUTSTANDING. This means you had players playing the game and NOT sitting on the bench. Personally, would LOVE to see max roster of 14 through U17. Let the kids PLAY!
    Careful what you wish for. We had only 14 on the roster last year and had only 2 games with all of them.
    The rest between 10-12 players because of injuries or sickness. The older they get the bigger you want your roster IMO.

    soccer geek

    Posts: 46
    Join date: 2009-06-21

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  soccer geek on Sat Jul 03, 2010 7:53 am

    RedBaron wrote:
    soccersoccersoccer wrote:Our team has decided to go with14 on the roster this year. Picked up #15 and #16 last year last minute and did not prove to help us at all. Boys seemed to do better at the games we only had a sub or 2, we def played better when our core 11 were on the field. I know the argument against this may be less team money or what if a few injuries happen. I think Barcelona only had 13 last year and they did very well. Our boys strong point is endurance so hopefully this works out for us!


    OUTSTANDING. This means you had players playing the game and NOT sitting on the bench. Personally, would LOVE to see max roster of 14 through U17. Let the kids PLAY!

    14 max through U17? Really?. That's ridiculous. Have you ever seen the older age groups play? The game gets a lot faster and more physical as they get older (I really noticed a difference at U13 and another jump at U14). Add to that the games are longer and you will see at least twice the number of injuries at these ages than what you have seen at U11. On top of that once they get to 7th grade school sports start, and no matter how much you tell them "soccer comes first", there are always conflicts with school sports for a portion of your roster. Other "required" school activities also kick in (band contests, etc). You will find by U14 if you have 16 on the roster there will be games that you only have 11 or 12 available. Have fun with 14 though if that floats your boat.

    mrclean

    Posts: 269
    Join date: 2009-06-24

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  mrclean on Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:59 am

    I wished it stayed at 18 for U16-U19 as well. Too many kids on the bench. I've always wondered why they changed it to 22.

    nuchad

    Posts: 106
    Join date: 2010-06-06

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  nuchad on Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:10 am

    soccer geek wrote:
    RedBaron wrote:
    soccersoccersoccer wrote:Our team has decided to go with14 on the roster this year. Picked up #15 and #16 last year last minute and did not prove to help us at all. Boys seemed to do better at the games we only had a sub or 2, we def played better when our core 11 were on the field. I know the argument against this may be less team money or what if a few injuries happen. I think Barcelona only had 13 last year and they did very well. Our boys strong point is endurance so hopefully this works out for us!


    OUTSTANDING. This means you had players playing the game and NOT sitting on the bench. Personally, would LOVE to see max roster of 14 through U17. Let the kids PLAY!

    14 max through U17? Really?. That's ridiculous. Have you ever seen the older age groups play? The game gets a lot faster and more physical as they get older (I really noticed a difference at U13 and another jump at U14). Add to that the games are longer and you will see at least twice the number of injuries at these ages than what you have seen at U11. On top of that once they get to 7th grade school sports start, and no matter how much you tell them "soccer comes first", there are always conflicts with school sports for a portion of your roster. Other "required" school activities also kick in (band contests, etc). You will find by U14 if you have 16 on the roster there will be games that you only have 11 or 12 available. Have fun with 14 though if that floats your boat.


    really, you have people in the band on your team??? hmmm. not that there's anything wrong with that...

    Axxman

    Posts: 982
    Join date: 2009-07-09

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  Axxman on Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:49 am

    soccer geek wrote:
    RedBaron wrote:
    soccersoccersoccer wrote:Our team has decided to go with14 on the roster this year. Picked up #15 and #16 last year last minute and did not prove to help us at all. Boys seemed to do better at the games we only had a sub or 2, we def played better when our core 11 were on the field. I know the argument against this may be less team money or what if a few injuries happen. I think Barcelona only had 13 last year and they did very well. Our boys strong point is endurance so hopefully this works out for us!


    OUTSTANDING. This means you had players playing the game and NOT sitting on the bench. Personally, would LOVE to see max roster of 14 through U17. Let the kids PLAY!

    14 max through U17? Really?. That's ridiculous. Have you ever seen the older age groups play? The game gets a lot faster and more physical as they get older (I really noticed a difference at U13 and another jump at U14). Add to that the games are longer and you will see at least twice the number of injuries at these ages than what you have seen at U11. On top of that once they get to 7th grade school sports start, and no matter how much you tell them "soccer comes first", there are always conflicts with school sports for a portion of your roster. Other "required" school activities also kick in (band contests, etc). You will find by U14 if you have 16 on the roster there will be games that you only have 11 or 12 available. Have fun with 14 though if that floats your boat.


    So is your bb "little soccer geek"?

    wayoutwest

    Posts: 27
    Join date: 2009-06-23
    Age: 46
    Location: The pitch.

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  wayoutwest on Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:59 am

    Soccer geek your words of wisdom are perfect, I couldn't have said it better.

    Ibystander

    Posts: 766
    Join date: 2009-08-03

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  Ibystander on Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:11 am

    soccersoccersoccer wrote:Our team has decided to go with14 on the roster this year. Picked up #15 and #16 last year last minute and did not prove to help us at all. Boys seemed to do better at the games we only had a sub or 2, we def played better when our core 11 were on the field. I know the argument against this may be less team money or what if a few injuries happen. I think Barcelona only had 13 last year and they did very well. Our boys strong point is endurance so hopefully this works out for us!

    I think you'll be fine with 14. Comets Blue only had 12 on their roster last year and added only one more at the end of July. It could get tough with the injuries and school obligations, though, but at least the kids will have a lot of playing time.

    TRUmom

    Posts: 32
    Join date: 2010-08-06

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  TRUmom on Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:15 am

    We sat with 15 last year and even then had a couple games where we had 0 or 1 sub. Injuries, illness and religion can bring your roster size down to a minimum quickly. I am sitting with 15 again this year but may look to pick up a couple extra throughout the year. I agree with the older they get the more you need to handle the injuries and other commitments that happen as they get older. As much as we all want them to make every practice and game, it's not realistic to expect that will happen so you have to add extra players to compensate for that.

    Seinfeld4

    Posts: 377
    Join date: 2009-06-23
    Location: Starting......NOW

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  Seinfeld4 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:18 pm

    Trumom,
    Who does your BB play for?

    TRUmom

    Posts: 32
    Join date: 2010-08-06

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  TRUmom on Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:30 pm

    Texas Rage United 99 (PPL)

    Seinfeld4

    Posts: 377
    Join date: 2009-06-23
    Location: Starting......NOW

    Re: Any teams NOT rostering 16 this year?

    Post  Seinfeld4 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:34 pm

    My bb plays for Triumph.

      Current date/time is Wed May 23, 2012 4:59 am