Good article from http://www.acoachinglife.wordpress.com

I hate try-outs. I hated them when I was a kid and was the one being measured. I’ve only ever taken part in one try-out where I didn’t make the team. That was my sophomore year of high-school when I didn’t make the varsity baseball team. But despite the fact that I made all the rest of the teams that I ever tried out for, I never enjoyed the process. I can imagine that players these days don’t like them any more than I did.
My opinion of try-outs hasn’t changed just because I’m the one making the decisions about who makes the team and who doesn’t. I coach young kids. The difference between my best player and my worst player is one good summer of dedicated work. In addition, there’s not enough difference between most of the kids who made my team and the ones who didn’t to justify the try-out experience. But that’s not why try-outs are counterproductive. That part is next.

Try-outs hurt your team. They hurt every team. That’s because the kids who make the team… well… they make the team. There’s a reason that the most intense you will ever see your players is for the two or three days of try-outs. That’s when their place in the squad is on the line. Those few days determine whether they will or won’t play. Once they make the team, that particular motivating factor is gone for the season. Now imagine an alternative.

Imagine a place where there were no try-outs. Everyone who shows up makes the team… but here’s the catch, they don’t necessarily make the squad who plays at the weekend. 40 kids show up for try-outs, 40 kids make the team and train together all week every week, 18 make the weekend squad. The rest play an intra-squad scrimmage match. Imagine if this were the process for determining the weekend squad every single week of the season. What kind of competitive fire would this stoke in your training sessions? How much more intense would your team’s focus become? And with that increase in intensity and competition each week, how much better would every single player out of that 40 become?

This is the vision I’m going to try and sell my club on next Fall. I don’t know how it would work with parents, state associations, player cards, rosters, and all the other nonsense that goes along with club soccer. But I do know that it would help kids get better at the game. And not just the top kids. All the kids. That much I’m sure of and that’s enough for me.

great in theory, but a majority of the kids who make the 40 person team would never get to play. Most of the kids hard work and determination would not put them past kids who are just better than they are at the current age.

I like the part about how the difference between the top and bottom is one summers hard work. This is so true with respect to skills-kids can come a long way in a short period of time with some dedicated practice. On the other hand, athleticism is trickier business.
The main problem with your theory is that tryouts are a mere formality. In club soccer all of the boys are thoroughly vetted prior to tryouts through open practices, guest playing, and scouting. Tryouts end up being a mere formality-the team is largely set before hand. The same is true of high school soccer-the coaches are intimately familiar with all of the players before tryouts are held. and don't get me started on ODP. Also, at the competitive level (U11 and above) I think it unlikely that any of the boys would be willing to forego actual paricipation on a team and remain on a training team instead.

chriscospins wrote:Good article from http://www.acoachinglife.wordpress.com

I hate try-outs. I hated them when I was a kid and was the one being measured. I’ve only ever taken part in one try-out where I didn’t make the team. That was my sophomore year of high-school when I didn’t make the varsity baseball team. But despite the fact that I made all the rest of the teams that I ever tried out for, I never enjoyed the process. I can imagine that players these days don’t like them any more than I did.
My opinion of try-outs hasn’t changed just because I’m the one making the decisions about who makes the team and who doesn’t. I coach young kids. The difference between my best player and my worst player is one good summer of dedicated work. In addition, there’s not enough difference between most of the kids who made my team and the ones who didn’t to justify the try-out experience. But that’s not why try-outs are counterproductive. That part is next.

Try-outs hurt your team. They hurt every team. That’s because the kids who make the team… well… they make the team. There’s a reason that the most intense you will ever see your players is for the two or three days of try-outs. That’s when their place in the squad is on the line. Those few days determine whether they will or won’t play. Once they make the team, that particular motivating factor is gone for the season. Now imagine an alternative.

Imagine a place where there were no try-outs. Everyone who shows up makes the team… but here’s the catch, they don’t necessarily make the squad who plays at the weekend. 40 kids show up for try-outs, 40 kids make the team and train together all week every week, 18 make the weekend squad. The rest play an intra-squad scrimmage match. Imagine if this were the process for determining the weekend squad every single week of the season. What kind of competitive fire would this stoke in your training sessions? How much more intense would your team’s focus become? And with that increase in intensity and competition each week, how much better would every single player out of that 40 become?

This is the vision I’m going to try and sell my club on next Fall. I don’t know how it would work with parents, state associations, player cards, rosters, and all the other nonsense that goes along with club soccer. But I do know that it would help kids get better at the game. And not just the top kids. All the kids. That much I’m sure of and that’s enough for me.

Contracts and roster size limits would present a major hurdle.

Not to mention the fact that you'd never get parents to spend $2000+ to be one of 40 instead of one of 16 or 18. You'd have to have a staff of at least three or four coaches to get the gearing ratios right. It's hard enough carving out playing time when you have 18 players on a team, what if you were one of the 22 that were "inactive" every week?

I've been a part of a couple of "tryouts" and for most teams, you're lucky to have 18 players show up July 1st. I can't imagine how you could get 30-40 players to show up for a single team's tryouts except for a very select group of teams. As Aswan stated before, for most teams tryouts are a mere formality with the core of the team being formed in the weeks and months leading up to July 1st.

Nice thought in theory, but impractical at best.

If I was in charge of the Universe, this is what I would rather see:

1. Clubs are only allowed one team in a Division. This would encourage clubs to promote their better players to higher levels. This would also dampen some of the parent postering and politics that goes on.

2. Players should receive an assessment from their coach in May. It should state if they have a guaranteed spot in the Fall. This way parents and players have all of June to shop around.

3. The number of players cut the previous season should be posted on each teams web page and on the Fact Sheet.

I am a very competitive and intense person. I just think there is too much pressure put on these kids. This process creates way too much stress and politics. If a coach doesn't think a player can help their team, then they shouldn't have put them on their roster. Whatever the weaknesses that a player has, the coach should be working on improving those areas. If a player is not progressing and is hurting the team, then that should be communicated to the player and parents. Kids that love soccer should be treated with dignity and the coach should point the player and parents to a club where they can develop in an environment with less pressure. Again, I'm not a "feel good", "everybody wins" kind of person. I've coached High School and I think winning is why we train and practice. But I also take team chemistry very seriously. Insecure players usually play very poorly within a team.

Oh and one more thing:

If you cut a player, take the time to tell them what they need to work on. If they have a strength, share that with them. Look them in their eyes, even if they have tears and tell them that you hope to see them next year at tryouts or on another team kicking their tail. Don't forget to shake their hand.

If you can do that, then you are a Coach.

I'd think those who didn't play much/ever on weekends would be less likely to even attend the training-aspect of the proposal.
I agree with the bald one (excellent Magic Erasers, btw) that the assessment would be something the player/parents deserve and are paying for with their dues. My dd's coach has a sit-down- excellent - kid and coach prepare for the meeting by ranking the player on various aspects of play (around 30-40 items). They sit and discuss strengths/weaknesses. Should there be an eventual cut or playing time decrease - it's not a suprise. This also gives the player incentive to work on things and lets them know what their coach values.
The professional players pretty much know ahead of time where they stand at the end of a contract, I think there could be something similar for our kids. Granted, there is no guarantee at the end of any season - it would be better if the coaches game you a ranking or likelihood of wanting a return. A simple eyeballing (is your kid starting, does he play 10 min per half?, does he sit the entire half?...) can give you a good indication, but not necessarily the exact information you might need.

chriscospins wrote:Good article from http://www.acoachinglife.wordpress.com

Imagine a place where there were no try-outs. Everyone who shows up makes the team… but here’s the catch, they don’t necessarily make the squad who plays at the weekend. 40 kids show up for try-outs, 40 kids make the team and train together all week every week, 18 make the weekend squad. The rest play an intra-squad scrimmage match. Imagine if this were the process for determining the weekend squad every single week of the season. What kind of competitive fire would this stoke in your training sessions? How much more intense would your team’s focus become? And with that increase in intensity and competition each week, how much better would every single player out of that 40 become?

Sounds wonderful. Instead of feeling the pain of rejection once or twice a year until a player finds a fit, he can now experience it 18 times a year.

At least he will have those wonderfully intimate 40 player training sessions where he can get lots of instruction tuned specifically for his level of play, since everybody who tries out for a team is always at the same level of play.

Has to be a DOC looking at 40 X $2000 but same expenses. Great idea, tryouts every week.

Would all 40 get a trophy?? If so, i'm in.

great more kids to sit on the bench, not play, hoping to learn thru osmosis.

CincoB wrote:Would all 40 get a trophy?? If so, i'm in.

Yes and you can have snacks at halftime and after the game.

I like the idea of earning your spot each week. I think kids should earn their spot each week during practice and then the coach plays the best 11 kids each week and the others are only subbed as needed for short breaks. But, I think to many coaches are trying to please all the parents.