How does your coach sub?

Hi,

I was curious how your coach subs. My older sons team had about 18 players. The center defenders played the whole game and the keeper. Everyone else subbed out. So there were roughly 8 spots for subs. As I watched the D1 and D2 teams, it seems in D2 substitutions were mostly equal. D1 not as much, but still a lot of substitutions. Most players on the older sons team played 40% for weaker players the rest played a little more than 50% always.

The younger sons team. They had 16 players. 1 player only played 5 minutes a game. 3 players played about 10 minutes a game. The coach never ever subbed 4 defenders, 2 center mids, and keeper. So basically that left 4 spots divided among the 9 remaining players. 2 of the starters play about 75%. This is every game including tournaments. What I see is the team gets weaker and weaker especially in tournaments as the game goes on. Truthfully, too many are exhausted. Oh yeah, everyone shows up for every practices as well. 3 of the lower players asked for a release early on, but nada.

So do you find this odd or normal?
How do you see your coaches subbing? I realize this is not rec and there is no equal playing time, but mostly curious.

Humm, many here won't want to say. People are too worried about getting found out. This is important information to figure out before joining a team by watching the teams the previous years or talking to the coach about it.

I don't know if there is a pattern. I think each coach is different. I have seen different approaches in tournaments versus classic play. If it is state cup or a tournament championship, usually the best players play more. In my experience in normal league games, most people play unless they are worried about relegation.

It all depends on who the coach made a deal with!

yea our coach has to play some players more then he should just keep the parents happy so they will stay    somebody has to pay the bills i guess  

Concerning defenders not surprised, defenders are hard to come by, good defenders are even more precious. Everyone wants to be a midfielder or forward. If you want lots of playing time become a defender....

soccerisgood123 wrote:Concerning defenders not surprised, defenders are hard to come by, good defenders are even more precious. Everyone wants to be a midfielder or forward. If you want lots of playing time become a defender....

or a keeper   

The Boss wrote:

soccerisgood123 wrote:Concerning defenders not surprised, defenders are hard to come by, good defenders are even more precious. Everyone wants to be a midfielder or forward. If you want lots of playing time become a defender....

or a keeper   

Yep absolutely...

I've noticed if a team is winning and everyone is happy, playing time is much more equal, all things considered, in every level. If a team is struggling, starters play much, much more. If a coach has an above par player on a bad team, they will play them pretty much the whole game... every game... so that when open practices occur, they are more likely to keep the player.

heyyouguys wrote:I've noticed if a team is winning and everyone is happy, playing time is much more equal, all things considered, in every level. If a team is struggling, starters play much, much more. If a coach has an above par player on a bad team, they will play them pretty much the whole game... every game... so that when open practices occur, they are more likely to keep the player.

Frankly I think the best 11 should play 75 percent of the game, this is competitive soccer....

soccerisgood123 wrote:

heyyouguys wrote:I've noticed if a team is winning and everyone is happy, playing time is much more equal, all things considered, in every level. If a team is struggling, starters play much, much more. If a coach has an above par player on a bad team, they will play them pretty much the whole game... every game... so that when open practices occur, they are more likely to keep the player.

Frankly I think the best 11 should play 75 percent of the game, this is competitive soccer....

Sure, that sounds fine... in a 60 minute game, if all the starters get 45 minutes on average, the 5 subs still have 150 minutes to split up between them, so they all play roughly half the game. That sounds pretty doable. I'm okay with a less when the games are close, the lower threshold being 15-20 minutes in an important game (starters playing ~50 minutes). I think what the original guy was asking was subs who literally play 5 - 10 minutes a game. I do have a problem with that... especially at young ages. If you don't think a kid is good enough for your team, don't sign him. simple as that. You have no chance of catching up to the starters playing 5 minutes a game... if a coach sits a player every single game, they shouldn't sign him at all, because that kid is not going to develop. A kid cannot grow as a soccer player only practicing, they need time to apply what they are learning. This whole topic is controversial... everyone has their own viewpoint. Pick the team that suits your viewpoint.

heyyouguys wrote:

soccerisgood123 wrote:

heyyouguys wrote:I've noticed if a team is winning and everyone is happy, playing time is much more equal, all things considered, in every level. If a team is struggling, starters play much, much more. If a coach has an above par player on a bad team, they will play them pretty much the whole game... every game... so that when open practices occur, they are more likely to keep the player.

Frankly I think the best 11 should play 75 percent of the game, this is competitive soccer....

Sure, that sounds fine... in a 60 minute game, if all the starters get 45 minutes on average, the 5 subs still have 150 minutes to split up between them, so they all play roughly half the game. That sounds pretty doable. I'm okay with a less when the games are close, the lower threshold being 15-20 minutes in an important game (starters playing ~50 minutes). I think what the original guy was asking was subs who literally play 5 - 10 minutes a game. I do have a problem with that... especially at young ages. If you don't think a kid is good enough for your team, don't sign him. simple as that. You have no chance of catching up to the starters playing 5 minutes a game... if a coach sits a player every single game, they shouldn't sign him at all, because that kid is not going to develop. A kid cannot grow as a soccer player only practicing, they need time to apply what they are learning. This whole topic is controversial... everyone has their own viewpoint. Pick the team that suits your viewpoint.

Now I totally agree with that if they aren't good enough you should not sign them, it's just a money grab and unfair.

Plus 5-10 min of garbage time is not playing, it's just placating IMO ...

soccerisgood123 wrote:Plus 5-10 min of garbage time is not playing, it's just placating IMO ...

Honestly, I'd rather the coach just tell me, "I'm not playing your son this game, just don't come", than to play my kid 5 minutes and waste our time.

heyyouguys wrote:

soccerisgood123 wrote:Plus 5-10 min of garbage time is not playing, it's just placating IMO ...

Honestly, I'd rather the coach just tell me, "I'm not playing your son this game, just don't come", than to play a kid 5 minutes and waste their time.

Yep and then ask for a release....

Depends on the coach but from I have seen most coaches ride their top horses all game long. Had only one coach that rotated equally. Coaches have reputations to uphold that is why you see this. They want to win. Have to prove yourself in practice for playing time otherwise they won't risk playing some kids. Not saying I agree with this but it is the reality.

sukiakiman wrote:Depends on the coach but from I have seen most coaches ride their top horses all game long. Had only one coach that rotated equally. Coaches have reputations to uphold that is why you see this. They want to win. Have to prove yourself in practice for playing time otherwise they won't risk playing some kids.  Not saying I agree with this but it is the reality.

Ok, but if a kid can only play 5 mins is he really on the right team? Just a money grab often a 17 and 18 spots...

soccerisgood123 wrote:

sukiakiman wrote:Depends on the coach but from I have seen most coaches ride their top horses all game long. Had only one coach that rotated equally. Coaches have reputations to uphold that is why you see this. They want to win. Have to prove yourself in practice for playing time otherwise they won't risk playing some kids.  Not saying I agree with this but it is the reality.

Ok, but if a kid can only play 5 mins is he really on the right team? Just a money grab often a 17 and 18 spots...

I would leave and find a team I could be one of the horses, paying all that money to sit is tough financially and tough on the kid.

sukiakiman wrote:

soccerisgood123 wrote:

sukiakiman wrote:Depends on the coach but from I have seen most coaches ride their top horses all game long. Had only one coach that rotated equally. Coaches have reputations to uphold that is why you see this. They want to win. Have to prove yourself in practice for playing time otherwise they won't risk playing some kids.  Not saying I agree with this but it is the reality.

Ok, but if a kid can only play 5 mins is he really on the right team? Just a money grab often a 17 and 18 spots...

I would leave and find a team I could be one of the horses, paying all that money to sit is tough financially and tough on the kid.

Yep that will kill your sons passion and confidence..

IMO, if your BB's not getting enough playing time, then he may have better players playing the same position ahead of him.
If you think he's talented enough to start on ANOTHER team, then look around in June.
Maybe the team that he's on is just full of talent.
If the coach promised you that your BB will get a lot of playing time, but didn't keep that promise, then the parent is a fool to re-sign with that team this July.
Leave for your kid, don't stay because you're friends with the other parents on the team or because the team's in the Top 5.
This is just my opinion.

To play devils advocate, some kids deserve little playing time, they are lazy, don't practice hard, don't run hard, don't show up to practice etc.

Could be that also. 

The "older" team in the OPs post seems atypical, the "younger" team more typical.  On most teams it seems that half the kids play all the time and the rest of the kids chop up the remaining minutes.  That may mean the 16th kid is getting 10 minutes, may mean he is getting 20 minutes.  
 
I seriously doubt that playing time directly affects your development.  BB's U11 team attempts like 125-150 passes per game...total.  Tries to beat kid on dribble maybe 20 times.  In 60 minutes.  You get maybe 20 touches a game if you are lucky.  You are getting WAY more touches under pressure than that at practice.  And you should be touching the ball infinitely more than that at home.   But I got to think for most kids PT directly affects how much fun you are having, which affects how much you give a crap about the stuff that will actually help your development.   I'm sure there is the rare 10 yr old who is motivated by lack of PT to work harder.
 
It seems very very hard to make the PT puzzle work for everyone.  I'm pretty philosophical about it all, I only get irate if my son plays less than 100% of the time.

Number13 wrote:The "older" team in the OPs post seems atypical, the "younger" team more typical.  On most teams it seems that half the kids play all the time and the rest of the kids chop up the remaining minutes.  That may mean the 16th kid is getting 10 minutes, may mean he is getting 20 minutes.  
 
I seriously doubt that playing time directly affects your development.  BB's U11 team attempts like 125-150 passes per game...total.  Tries to beat kid on dribble maybe 20 times.  In 60 minutes.  You get maybe 20 touches a game if you are lucky.  You are getting WAY more touches under pressure than that at practice.  And you should be touching the ball infinitely more than that at home.   But I got to think for most kids PT directly affects how much fun you are having, which affects how much you give a crap about the stuff that will actually help your development.   I'm sure there is the rare 10 yr old who is motivated by lack of PT to work harder.
 
It seems very very hard to make the PT puzzle work for everyone.  I'm pretty philosophical about it all, I only get irate if my son plays less than 100% of the time.

The puzzle is much easier when you don't money grab 18 players a u11..think if you carried 15-16how much easier the puzzle is...

soccerisgood123 wrote:

Number13 wrote:The "older" team in the OPs post seems atypical, the "younger" team more typical.  On most teams it seems that half the kids play all the time and the rest of the kids chop up the remaining minutes.  That may mean the 16th kid is getting 10 minutes, may mean he is getting 20 minutes.  
 
I seriously doubt that playing time directly affects your development.  BB's U11 team attempts like 125-150 passes per game...total.  Tries to beat kid on dribble maybe 20 times.  In 60 minutes.  You get maybe 20 touches a game if you are lucky.  You are getting WAY more touches under pressure than that at practice.  And you should be touching the ball infinitely more than that at home.   But I got to think for most kids PT directly affects how much fun you are having, which affects how much you give a crap about the stuff that will actually help your development.   I'm sure there is the rare 10 yr old who is motivated by lack of PT to work harder.
 
It seems very very hard to make the PT puzzle work for everyone.  I'm pretty philosophical about it all, I only get irate if my son plays less than 100% of the time.

The puzzle is much easier when you don't money grab 18 players a u11..think if you carried 15-16how much easier the puzzle is...

If you think 18 is ugly and hard to manage - wait until the roster limit changes to 22 and then maybe the club says "well to get 1 scholarship you need 18 players. to get 2 you need 20. to get more you need more". it's an ugly never-ending cycle