Maybe soccer never takes off here because the clubs have no loyalty to their own players, the ones they are supposedly developing. June is a good reminder that most of these clubs will throw their own kids out the door without batting an eye if someone shows up to tryouts who is a half step faster or a couple inches taller than what they have. Doesn't matter how long they've been there, how hard they worked, how loyal they've been. Kids figure this out after a couple years in the select world. Why would any kid - or parent - go to the mat for his club knowing that the club's loyalty to his or her development comes to a dead halt if they find someone who is a little further along for the next year? Do coaches wonder why their players don't show any loyalty? Maybe that is what they learned at a young age from their coaches and clubs.

This is not new. There is not loyalty in soccer.

It's comical .. they choose others thereby in a round about way calling out their own ability to develope players . From what I have seen . If you can kick it to the outside of the defender and run around him your IN! Some are so fast and out of control they can't even compose themselves for a decent shot , but ehh why not just volume shoot 1 is bound to go in sooner or later..

They will choose the biggest and fastest then try to teach them how to play under control ,simplier,and calm . then they will ask where their speed went ..placing a value on possession and calm play has no place in NTX. Why else would they pick kids that continually bring a howitzer to a bb gun fight . No pace , No touch, No acccuracy

McEnroe would laugh in your face while he finessed you to death.

No fear there is a place for a more balanced, beautiful, thought provoking game. It's called another country.

Love the article about the Egg drill. From what I see 85-90% practiced the rebound machien then chase after it drill . If you lose it then outrun and beat the $hit outa someone till you win it back. Absorb? TO busy attacking to absorb.

Clubs are loyal to their bottom line . All of them .. Coaches sometimes do show some loyalty . In the case of pre-Academy it has been used as a tool to recruit and pilage from other clubs , Grow numbers , then decide what to do when the ink is dry. Have seen kids picked up on referral or reputation without sighning club haveing so much as looked at them.

I really love how shocked they are when you tell them that you're leaving! I don't think the majority of them ever plan ahead or think of the future.

I agree on many levels with what you are saying plantit. It is a competitive environment and coaches and clubs are going to do what they need to do to WIN AT ALL COSTS until something changes here in NTX. The result is kids with lots of talent, skill and speed who have the potential to end up international superstars someday are not taught to slow down and be thoughtful and creative with their passing or attacking. Instead, they are encouraged to GO GO GO!!! We play so direct in this country compared to others - it is ridiculous. It is reflected in MLS. Watch an MLS game and then flip over to a Euro league and the difference is striking. Their players generally play with so much more poise, patience, creativity, and possession. We will not produce a high percentage of superstar players in the US per capita (or however you want to measure it) until we allow our youth to slow the game down and quit playing so direct.

Soccerinsanity wrote:I really love how shocked they are when you tell them that you're leaving! I don't think the majority of them ever plan ahead or think of the future.

"Like" button....so, so true! Would even add "most don't think you would ever leave no matter how badly a player is treated". "Loyalty" is a one way street...

It's difficult to find, but there are a few "good guys" out there coaching our BBs...be your kid's best advocate and search them out.

Coaches aren't supposed to be loyal to individual players during tryouts unlike during the season. They are supposed to be loyal to the team. They are supposed to do what's right for the team. Skill level of a player is only one facet of that decision making process. Attitude and even a player's parents' attitude will come into play. Do some coaches play politics? Of course. The system isn't perfect, but it is what it is.

What you don't see is a good coach suddenly turn bad, or a bad coach suddenly turn good. These coaches do what they do, year after year. If the coach is successful, parents, and a few players, flock to him as though he was their ticket to glory. Then, when screwed, say they didn't see it coming. I'm not picking out any individual coaches are clubs. What I'm saying is that people do a lot of this blindly.

NTX soccer is not as cut throat as you think it is. That's not to say that this time of year is not stressful. If your kid gets cut, it's most likely, by far, something that has been coming for a long time. You were just too blind to see it. You have to watch playing time and how your son is handled by the coach during games. Unfortunately, most parents don't have the balls to ask the tough questions at the right time. They are afraid to upset the applecart. Just because the coach jokes around with your kid between games or is friendly to you does not mean your kid is a stud. All that means is that the coach is able to be human between games. Watch him during a game. If your kid is consistently the whipping boy, you better find out why and work with your kid to get it fixed.

Hot buttons for coaches are lazy, aloof, non-participatory, non-passionate players. I guarantee you a coach will keep a daisypicker with heart over a kid with a bad attitude two outta three times. Daisypickers drive coaches crazy. Players with bad attitudes piss coaches off. One is bad. The other is unacceptable.

If yout son was kicked off a team and you're blaming the coach because of some kind of dis-loyalty to justify it, you better look hard. He has to be loyal to the team first. If your kid was holding the team back, a distraction or whatever, your kid is gonna be gone.

Loyalty is one of those words you really gotta be careful about saying. This time of year, the coaches cannot afford to be loyal to individual players. Many coaches are, and they have a hard time pulling the trigger on players that really should go, and that usually hurts the team.

Now, that's all in a semi-perfect world. As far as the comments about "future superstars and playing in Europe", I haven't seen any of those around here in a while. Don't blame the coaches. Blame the consumers. If you want a coach to "do this right", there are plenty that will talk to you about it. You are going to have a problem a) getting enough players to "stick it out" long enough for it to pay off, and b) getting enough parents to "stick it out" long enough for it to pay off. I think you'll find the coach agree with you. They just can't make any money around here doing that.

Should there by loyalty in select? I don't know the answer to this but I always considered select to be just that, the best players. I think our miss at soccer development is at the recreational level, that is where 80% of the fundamental development should be. I think we are in such a rush to get our kids to 11v11 and not spend more time on small sided games at the U10-U12 age group. We need to do a better job of getting the coaches that know soccer down to the younger kids instead of the volunteer Dad's that really don't know the proper training techniques.

Also, you cannot always blame the coach if a player does not develop. I see it in my son's U14 age group, kids that don't put the time in at practice. Now they show up, and they go through the drills but they are not motivated to work hard and spend no time away from practices trying to make themselves better. I guarantee if new players are coming in and replacing anyone's kids, those new kids have gotten better by practicing on their own or with friends. You cannot make a great soccer player by practicing twice a week for an hour and a half with a select coach. Players will get passed up if they are not committed to the sport, especially as they get older.

"I am sure everyone knows some kid who shouldn't still be on the team or playing but magically still is"

no kidding. it pisses people off to see your kid practice, go to camps in 100 degree weather, do whatever they can to make the team and some kid who obviously is not good enough, athletic enough and has no passion makes it. It is almost a slap in the face to the kids who are passionate and it makes the coach lose face on the eyes of the parents and kids.

If it is truly select soccer, then it should be just that "select." As in the best 15 kids or so make the team regardless of whether or not a kid has played with that coach from age 7 to 14 but now he is not good enough. This could cause teams to change from year to year but so be it.

On the flip side, coaches should assume if they have a good player, he may be targeted and go to better situation for him personally. Each kid is a free agent and is always free to find a better team.

My problem is what is really best for your kid? Do you put him on a D1 team where he rarely plays or a D3 team where he is the star. I tend to say put him on the D3 team where he plays as opposed to the D1 team where he rides the bench.

"My problem is what is really best for your kid? Do you put him on a D1 team where he rarely plays or a D3 team where he is the star. I tend to say put him on the D3 team where he plays as opposed to the D1 team where he rides the bench."


my feeling is any kid who is on the team who rides the bench has a fool for a parent. benchwarmers are easily replaced and it defeats the whole purpose of PLAYING SOCCER. 2500 bucks to watch games?, what idiocy. give me a d3 team any day over that

anselansel wrote:"My problem is what is really best for your kid? Do you put him on a D1 team where he rarely plays or a D3 team where he is the star. I tend to say put him on the D3 team where he plays as opposed to the D1 team where he rides the bench."


my feeling is any kid who is on the team who rides the bench has a fool for a parent. benchwarmers are easily replaced and it defeats the whole purpose of PLAYING SOCCER. 2500 bucks to watch games?, what idiocy. give me a d3 team any day over that

I agree, I think it is hard to learn the game from the bench. I cannot understand the parents clammoring to have their kid on a great team, but their kid never plays. I can't understand at any level why you have your kid on a team if does not play a significant amount of the minutes. I would rather take my kid back to rec. and let him have fun.

Running wrote:

anselansel wrote:"My problem is what is really best for your kid? Do you put him on a D1 team where he rarely plays or a D3 team where he is the star. I tend to say put him on the D3 team where he plays as opposed to the D1 team where he rides the bench."


my feeling is any kid who is on the team who rides the bench has a fool for a parent. benchwarmers are easily replaced and it defeats the whole purpose of PLAYING SOCCER. 2500 bucks to watch games?, what idiocy. give me a d3 team any day over that

I agree, I think it is hard to learn the game from the bench. I cannot understand the parents clammoring to have their kid on a great team, but their kid never plays. I can't understand at any level why you have your kid on a team if does not play a significant amount of the minutes. I would rather take my kid back to rec. and let him have fun.

I hear what you are stating, and do not necessarily disagree, but if EVERYONE took that to the bank each team would only have the starting 11. I think it is a little harsh, and a little presumptious, to blame the parents of kid 12 - (now) 18.

ontherightside wrote:

Running wrote:

anselansel wrote:"My problem is what is really best for your kid? Do you put him on a D1 team where he rarely plays or a D3 team where he is the star. I tend to say put him on the D3 team where he plays as opposed to the D1 team where he rides the bench."


my feeling is any kid who is on the team who rides the bench has a fool for a parent. benchwarmers are easily replaced and it defeats the whole purpose of PLAYING SOCCER. 2500 bucks to watch games?, what idiocy. give me a d3 team any day over that

I agree, I think it is hard to learn the game from the bench. I cannot understand the parents clammoring to have their kid on a great team, but their kid never plays. I can't understand at any level why you have your kid on a team if does not play a significant amount of the minutes. I would rather take my kid back to rec. and let him have fun.

I hear what you are stating, and do not necessarily disagree, but if EVERYONE took that to the bank each team would only have the starting 11. I think it is a little harsh, and a little presumptious, to blame the parents of kid 12 - (now) 18.

You are right, to follow my thought through would mean that there are only 11-13 kids on each team. Frankly, I think the roster size should only be about 13 or 14 on 11v 11 with numbers 12-14 getting a lot of playing time. If I coached, I would not have kids on my team that rode the bench. They would be good enought to rotate in and be trusted on the field or would not be on the team.

My thought is I would not have my kid on D1 team if he was number 18 as opposed to letting him play on a D3 or plano team and be a starter that played a lot.

If I coached, I would not have kids on my team that rode the bench. They would be good enough to rotate in and be trusted on the field or would not be on the team.



now that i totally agree with. If they aren't good enough to play and be trusted they should not be on the team. It is waste of everyone's time. 14 players max, i think personally

Running wrote:

ontherightside wrote:

Running wrote:

anselansel wrote:"My problem is what is really best for your kid? Do you put him on a D1 team where he rarely plays or a D3 team where he is the star. I tend to say put him on the D3 team where he plays as opposed to the D1 team where he rides the bench."


my feeling is any kid who is on the team who rides the bench has a fool for a parent. benchwarmers are easily replaced and it defeats the whole purpose of PLAYING SOCCER. 2500 bucks to watch games?, what idiocy. give me a d3 team any day over that

I agree, I think it is hard to learn the game from the bench. I cannot understand the parents clammoring to have their kid on a great team, but their kid never plays. I can't understand at any level why you have your kid on a team if does not play a significant amount of the minutes. I would rather take my kid back to rec. and let him have fun.

I hear what you are stating, and do not necessarily disagree, but if EVERYONE took that to the bank each team would only have the starting 11. I think it is a little harsh, and a little presumptious, to blame the parents of kid 12 - (now) 18.

You are right, to follow my thought through would mean that there are only 11-13 kids on each team. Frankly, I think the roster size should only be about 13 or 14 on 11v 11 with numbers 12-14 getting a lot of playing time. If I coached, I would not have kids on my team that rode the bench. They would be good enought to rotate in and be trusted on the field or would not be on the team.

My thought is I would not have my kid on D1 team if he was number 18 as opposed to letting him play on a D3 or plano team and be a starter that played a lot.

Agree- roster size is WAY TOO BIG! Feel bad for the kid/parents who have no idea that their kid is 14-18 until after signing on the dotted line. Happens every year.

Roster size 13 or 14? Wish I lived in your guy's magical world of no injuries. You should also sell your conditioning program that gets you thru a 5 or 6 game tournament weekend with 2 subs.

my2cents wrote:Roster size 13 or 14? Wish I lived in your guy's magical world of no injuries. You should also sell your conditioning program that gets you thru a 5 or 6 game tournament weekend with 2 subs.

I am more impressed as how these "coaches" state that "If I had a D1 team, I would only have...". I guess developing is only done in DIII?? Do any of these "coaches" understand how much is learned at practices and small sided scrimmages? Admittedly, riding the bench is not what any parent should want, but only having 2 kids that can step on the pitch for any game shows a severe lack of understanding the physical limits of teens/pre-teens playing in 100 degree weather.

Now that you mention it, that is another problem. Why they have kids playing the most important games of the season in 100+ degree heat is crazy. How about making the season run from January to January and have the Qualifying in late November or early December? You could then play through the summer and have most of the games in evenings as school is out.

Additionally, although there may be 18 kids on a roster to help with the injury and heat issues, I have regulary seen teams that play only the top 12 to 14 even in the heat and most of the others ride the bench. I guess to each his own, but I fail to see why anyone would have a kid on a team and he rarely plays. The only possible explanation I see was given earlier by the poster that mentioned you may not know your kid is a benchwarmer until after he signs.

Running wrote: I guess to each his own, but I fail to see why anyone would have a kid on a team and he rarely plays.

Because there are parents out there who have drunk the Kool-Aid and they believe that if their kid is on "Team X" which is coached by "Super Coach X" then that kid is on his way. The Magic will rub off on him whether he plays or not. He's on track to a 100% full ride to Stanford and/or a first pick on MLS and/or whatever Pie in the Sky they want to believe.

As go99 said above, everyone needs to make sure they are doing what is in the best interest of the kid. Not of the team, or of their own self, or a coach or manager, or whoever. Your own kid is who matters. Loyalty is great. Unfortunately in this world and particularly in this month, loyalty gets you just about nowhere. Look out for numero uno.

I would also add that every parent needs to continuously reality-check their lives. What is your ultimate endgame? Is all of the time, money, effort that you are putting into this justifiable? Only you can answer that.

-

Running wrote:Now that you mention it, that is another problem. Why they have kids playing the most important games of the season in 100+ degree heat is crazy. How about making the season run from January to January and have the Qualifying in late November or early December? You could then play through the summer and have most of the games in evenings as school is out.

Additionally, although there may be 18 kids on a roster to help with the injury and heat issues, I have regulary seen teams that play only the top 12 to 14 even in the heat and most of the others ride the bench. I guess to each his own, but I fail to see why anyone would have a kid on a team and he rarely plays. The only possible explanation I see was given earlier by the poster that mentioned you may not know your kid is a benchwarmer until after he signs.

Agree witht 100 degree heat comment. They should move to the three team bracket set up to reduce the number of games to win a tournament. As far as the January to January, there already is a year round league, The Development Acacdemy league. The league that is supposed to have less games but higher quality and more development but needs year round play to get them in. It conflicts with this little league called UIL soccer.