Youth Soccer Rotation - Help (1 Viewer)

[The Dude]

Boys 1st grade park district (developmental).

So everybody plays the same amount of time - at least close. 4 quarters, 9 minutes each.

9 kids on the field at a time - 1 is the goalie - so I got 8 rotational spots.

Unfortunately, i got 14 kids on the team (so on a full day, 5 on the bench)

Any thoughts on the best way to manage rotations?

TIA

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sub five in with 3 minutes gone in the 2nd.

Sub those five back in with 3 minutes left in the 3rd.

Everyone plays 2/3rds of the game.

 

[The Dude]

So are you saying each group sits an entire quarter plus straight? I would get strung up

 

[Pastor]

I coach 3 youth soccer teams and I keep the goalie in for the whole quarter. I then rotate players half way through the quarter. I make sure that I don't start all my best players so that the teams are always about the same level.

You can also tell the parents ahead of time that not every game will be equal time but by the end of the season it will work out. Also, parents are ok if their kid doesn't play as much as the best players as long as everyone plays a decent amount. We played an awful team yesterday and my 3 worst players played about 80% of the game. Next week against the top team it will be 50%. It works out.

 

[belljr]

Split the quarters in half. You sub six. Keep 2 in.

Start of 2nd sub 6 keep 2 in nut not the original 2

 

[Sinn Fein]

Play your best 9, tell the 5 scrubs to practice harder.

 

[gianmarco]

Swap 1 kid in every 1:37.

 

[dino259]

Don't forget you will most likely not have full rosters for every game based on my experience coaching baseball and football.

 

[trogg78]

We have a rule where everyone has to play two quarters. I don't even try to make it even. The players that work the hardest get more playing time maybe 3 full quarters.

 

[PIK95]

Six year olds don't know how to take the pedal off the metal. They will run until they collapse. You should probably sub them every four minutes or so. No more then five minute shifts IMO.

I am the coordinator of the competitive side of our city's soccer club. If you have any questions at all feel free to ask or pm. Good luck!

 

[BlueDemon]

When in doubt play the kids with the best looking moms the most,

 

[Lehigh98]

My kids are now 9 and 7 and I've been coaching them about 4-5 years. Just coashed first graders again this past Fall and Winter. We've been playing 4 x 10 minute quarters in most seasons. Most recently they play 5 + Goalie with about 5 subs when everyone shows up. I have the kids play full quarters and then move them around at the breaks. Less confusing for them and me and keeps the game moving while they get a solid 10 minutes playing / learning one spot.

If the kids on the side aren't watching and cheering on their team I have them on the side dribbling or passing back and forth to keep them occupied.

 

[Lehigh98]

So are you saying each group sits an entire quarter plus straight? I would get strung up

Run your team the way you think is best. If someone complains, let them know the league is always looking for coaches and would be happy to have them to coach their own team.

 

[Lehigh98]

You can also tell the parents ahead of time that not every game will be equal time but by the end of the season it will work out. Also, parents are ok if their kid doesn't play as much as the best players as long as everyone plays a decent amount. We played an awful team yesterday and my 3 worst players played about 80% of the game. Next week against the top team it will be 50%. It works out.

This works. Its a little overboard but I keep track of how many quarters every player has played and how many goals they've scored. I do this to make sure kids are getting even time and I'm not unintentioanlly playing the better kids or my son more than the others.

 

[Worm]

6-7 year olds

4 + goalie, 9 kids on the team

I tried the Kentucky squad method but they are on the sideline too much and get disinterested. I found the best way was to rotate in/out in pairs. Your team is larger but pairs might still work. Keeps them fresh and rotating in often.

I will just keep track of my pair rotation and rotate every X minutes.

 

[Fat Nick]

Play your best 9, tell the 5 scrubs to practice harder.

although I know you CAN'T do this in your situation...

As much as I want to coach my kid when he gets old enough, I know full well I'll have major issues with all of these equal opportunity rules. When I was a kid, every kid got some game time, but it was widely known that the best kids played the full game, and if you weren't good, you had to either get better, or you played less. That's life, and that's what motivates kids to get better.

 

[El Floppo]

Do the kids have jerseys with numbers? If so, start 1-8, bench the rest. rotate in #9 for #1 etc. That way you just have to keep track of when to rotate the kids

 

[Fat Nick]

Do the kids have jerseys with numbers? If so, start 1-8, bench the rest. rotate in #9 for #1 etc. That way you just have to keep track of when to rotate the kids

Positions-be-####ed? I feel like you have to at least know what positions the kids are playing, no? Or is it that at this age, it's just hoard-ball with 1 kid off playing with bugs in the grass?

 

[dino259]

Do the kids have jerseys with numbers? If so, start 1-8, bench the rest. rotate in #9 for #1 etc. That way you just have to keep track of when to rotate the kids

Positions-be-####ed? I feel like you have to at least know what positions the kids are playing, no? Or is it that at this age, it's just hoard-ball with 1 kid off playing with bugs in the grass?

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

 

[The Gator]

Play your best 9, tell the 5 scrubs to practice harder.

 

[The Gator]

Do the kids have jerseys with numbers? If so, start 1-8, bench the rest. rotate in #9 for #1 etc. That way you just have to keep track of when to rotate the kids

Your #9 needs to start

 

[El Floppo]

Do the kids have jerseys with numbers? If so, start 1-8, bench the rest. rotate in #9 for #1 etc. That way you just have to keep track of when to rotate the kids

Positions-be-####ed? I feel like you have to at least know what positions the kids are playing, no? Or is it that at this age, it's just hoard-ball with 1 kid off playing with bugs in the grass?

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

 

[Cjw_55106]

8 playing and 5 on the bench? Id make one kid go home and rotate the three groups of four.

 

[The Gator]

Do the kids have jerseys with numbers? If so, start 1-8, bench the rest. rotate in #9 for #1 etc. That way you just have to keep track of when to rotate the kids

Positions-be-####ed? I feel like you have to at least know what positions the kids are playing, no? Or is it that at this age, it's just hoard-ball with 1 kid off playing with bugs in the grass?

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

Very MLS of you

 

[trogg78]

Do the kids have jerseys with numbers? If so, start 1-8, bench the rest. rotate in #9 for #1 etc. That way you just have to keep track of when to rotate the kids

Positions-be-####ed? I feel like you have to at least know what positions the kids are playing, no? Or is it that at this age, it's just hoard-ball with 1 kid off playing with bugs in the grass?

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

I teach the newer kids defense first. It's the easiest position to learn where they need to be and how to slide over when one defender is rushing the ball and it teaches them to be aggressive and attack the ball. Once they are aggressive to the ball im fine moving them everywhere on the field.

 

[Cjw_55106]

So first graders need to get to a certain level before you let them move around? Ok Pele.

 

[El Floppo]

Do the kids have jerseys with numbers? If so, start 1-8, bench the rest. rotate in #9 for #1 etc. That way you just have to keep track of when to rotate the kids

Your #9 needs to start

what is this, 2011? get current- the #9 is a dinosaur.

 

[trogg78]

So first graders need to get to a certain level before you let them move around? Ok Pele.

the first level is being able to run to the ball and kick it. After that, they are golden.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This is my area of expertise. Every 4 1/2 minutes, put everybody on the bench into the game. So that makes 8 shifts x 9 players = 72 total shifts. If all 14 kids are there, that means 5 shifts for 12 of the kids and 6 shifts for the other 2.

I coach 6th grade girls now and the only thing I struggle with is whether time as a goalkeeper should count the same as time as a position player. In the past I've considered it all the same but I'm thinking of switching that up this season. We didn't have goalkeepers back in 1st grade so I'm not sure how the kids respond to playing there at that age.

In my opinion, 9v9 is way too big a game for kids that age. A bunch of kids will barely touch the ball. But I know that's not something you can change.

 

[El Floppo]

So first graders need to get to a certain level before you let them move around? Ok Pele.

it makes a certain sense.

it's easier to defend- and easier to know when to move to the ball when defending. once they get that idea down as first timers playing, they can adapt better to playing attacking roles.

I'd still just run them all out there and constantly switch positiions- but that's me.

 

[Fat Nick]

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

No offense, but this is exactly what I meant when I said I'd have issues coaching these days. I played soccer in 1st grade. I played maybe 10 minutes a game. The next year, I played more...and from then on out, I was a starter and played organized soccer until I graduated HS.

Why is a kid with lesser skills not getting the same playing time as a kid with better skills so bad? The flip side is that the kid with better skills has LESS playing time than he otherwise would. What about that kid?

I guess I just don't get why having to pay your dues and learn a sport before you get full playing time is a bad thing.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

No offense, but this is exactly what I meant when I said I'd have issues coaching these days. I played soccer in 1st grade. I played maybe 10 minutes a game. The next year, I played more...and from then on out, I was a starter and played organized soccer until I graduated HS.

Why is a kid with lesser skills not getting the same playing time as a kid with better skills so bad? The flip side is that the kid with better skills has LESS playing time than he otherwise would. What about that kid?

I guess I just don't get why having to pay your dues and learn a sport before you get full playing time is a bad thing.

What in your view is the purpose of youth sports?

 

[Fat Nick]

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

No offense, but this is exactly what I meant when I said I'd have issues coaching these days. I played soccer in 1st grade. I played maybe 10 minutes a game. The next year, I played more...and from then on out, I was a starter and played organized soccer until I graduated HS.

Why is a kid with lesser skills not getting the same playing time as a kid with better skills so bad? The flip side is that the kid with better skills has LESS playing time than he otherwise would. What about that kid?

I guess I just don't get why having to pay your dues and learn a sport before you get full playing time is a bad thing.

What in your view is the purpose of youth sports?

To teach kids about sports, let them develop their skills, and get them ready for higher-levels of sports?

 

[Lehigh98]

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

No offense, but this is exactly what I meant when I said I'd have issues coaching these days. I played soccer in 1st grade. I played maybe 10 minutes a game. The next year, I played more...and from then on out, I was a starter and played organized soccer until I graduated HS.

Why is a kid with lesser skills not getting the same playing time as a kid with better skills so bad? The flip side is that the kid with better skills has LESS playing time than he otherwise would. What about that kid?

I guess I just don't get why having to pay your dues and learn a sport before you get full playing time is a bad thing.

They're 6 years old, what do you think they're out running windsprints at midnight to "Eye of the Tiger"?

Once they've all actually had some playing and practice time they'll begin to show separation in desire and skill.

At this point, everyone's learning and needs time to play and develop.

 

[General Malaise]

When in doubt play the kids with the best looking moms the most,

 

[El Floppo]

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

No offense, but this is exactly what I meant when I said I'd have issues coaching these days. I played soccer in 1st grade. I played maybe 10 minutes a game. The next year, I played more...and from then on out, I was a starter and played organized soccer until I graduated HS.

Why is a kid with lesser skills not getting the same playing time as a kid with better skills so bad? The flip side is that the kid with better skills has LESS playing time than he otherwise would. What about that kid?

I guess I just don't get why having to pay your dues and learn a sport before you get full playing time is a bad thing.

What in your view is the purpose of youth sports?

To teach kids about sports, let them develop their skills, and get them ready for higher-levels of sports?

there's been a shift (and should be more of a shift) for kids of that age to minimize the playing games component to just playing.

what you're describing is setting these games up for 6 year olds to be about winning. IMO (and I'm not alone), the sport should be developed for the players so that they learn how to play the game 1st. winning- whatever. at that age and level, there's going to be one or two kids who will step onto the field and win games single-handedly. that's not teaching anybody how to play the sport- even the fledgeling superstars.

 

[General Malaise]

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

No offense, but this is exactly what I meant when I said I'd have issues coaching these days. I played soccer in 1st grade. I played maybe 10 minutes a game. The next year, I played more...and from then on out, I was a starter and played organized soccer until I graduated HS.

Why is a kid with lesser skills not getting the same playing time as a kid with better skills so bad? The flip side is that the kid with better skills has LESS playing time than he otherwise would. What about that kid?

I guess I just don't get why having to pay your dues and learn a sport before you get full playing time is a bad thing.

What in your view is the purpose of youth sports?

To teach kids about sports, let them develop their skills, and get them ready for higher-levels of sports?

That's part of it, but at this age, your number one goal is to get them to sign up for soccer again the following season. That means they need to have fun and they need to play. You aren't Chip Kelly, which is a conversation I have to have with myself every game.

 

[El Floppo]

the country of Belgium completely revamped their youth program/system- encouraging players to touch the ball more daily (10k/day was the goal) and minimize playing "competitive" games.

aside from waffles, mayo on fries and... beer.. that's also produced the best generation of Belgian players in history. could be a lucky coincidence with a bunch of quality players being born at the same time... or not.

 

[Fat Nick]

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

No offense, but this is exactly what I meant when I said I'd have issues coaching these days. I played soccer in 1st grade. I played maybe 10 minutes a game. The next year, I played more...and from then on out, I was a starter and played organized soccer until I graduated HS.

Why is a kid with lesser skills not getting the same playing time as a kid with better skills so bad? The flip side is that the kid with better skills has LESS playing time than he otherwise would. What about that kid?

I guess I just don't get why having to pay your dues and learn a sport before you get full playing time is a bad thing.

They're 6 years old, what do you think they're out running windsprints at midnight to "Eye of the Tiger"?

Once they've all actually had some playing and practice time they'll begin to show separation in desire and skill.

At this point, everyone's learning and needs time to play and develop.

So no kid is better than the others? And no kid is worse than the others? If this is the case, then fine...play is commensurate with ability...but even at 6, there are kids who are good at things, and kids who aren't.

I get what you're saying - and agree that at that age, it's mostly about learning. My main view though, is that organized practice should be where you learn. Even at 6. You get to play in every game, but the mandate that every kid plays an equal amount seems overkill.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

That's part of it, but at this age, your number one goal is to get them to sign up for soccer again the following season. That means they need to have fun and they need to play.

Yeah, this is exactly how I feel about it.

 

[El Floppo]

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

No offense, but this is exactly what I meant when I said I'd have issues coaching these days. I played soccer in 1st grade. I played maybe 10 minutes a game. The next year, I played more...and from then on out, I was a starter and played organized soccer until I graduated HS.

Why is a kid with lesser skills not getting the same playing time as a kid with better skills so bad? The flip side is that the kid with better skills has LESS playing time than he otherwise would. What about that kid?

I guess I just don't get why having to pay your dues and learn a sport before you get full playing time is a bad thing.

They're 6 years old, what do you think they're out running windsprints at midnight to "Eye of the Tiger"?

Once they've all actually had some playing and practice time they'll begin to show separation in desire and skill.

At this point, everyone's learning and needs time to play and develop.

So no kid is better than the others? And no kid is worse than the others? If this is the case, then fine...play is commensurate with ability...but even at 6, there are kids who are good at things, and kids who aren't.

I get what you're saying - and agree that at that age, it's mostly about learning. My main view though, is that organized practice should be where you learn. Even at 6. You get to play in every game, but the mandate that every kid plays an equal amount seems overkill.

of course kids are better. and they'll score the goals and win the games. how much they play won't affect that.

if this was an upper elite top tier league of 6 year olds.. .then yeah- top guys play, next guys get steak knives.

 

[Fat Nick]

If you want to make the sport at younger ages more about playing and having fun, then that's great. Every kid can play in a scrimmage. I liked scrimmaging as much as games when I was a kid because I just wanted to play and be free of organized drills, etc. But if you're playing a "game," the context is that you're playing to win. I don't know. I know where you guys are coming from. I don't want my kid to be obsessed with winning and be one of those kids that flips #### if they lose...but at the same time, I want my kid to WANT to win like I did when I was a kid. I practiced my ### off. I was "that kid" at a younger age that was just better than everyone in my county's rec league. I remember scoring 5+ goals a game and then being forced to play goalie.

I do agree 100% with what El Floppo said re. being "that one kid" not helping anyone though. I was so much better than everybody at like age 9 through probably 14...then, when we started playing outside of our county, I had my ### handed to me by guys who had to face real competition most of the time, while I relied on speed and a good shot. I didn't have the fundamentals.

I guess my thing is that if you don't want competition, don't call them games.

 

[Fat Nick]

It is first grade. All kids should play equal and everywhere.

exactly

No offense, but this is exactly what I meant when I said I'd have issues coaching these days. I played soccer in 1st grade. I played maybe 10 minutes a game. The next year, I played more...and from then on out, I was a starter and played organized soccer until I graduated HS.

Why is a kid with lesser skills not getting the same playing time as a kid with better skills so bad? The flip side is that the kid with better skills has LESS playing time than he otherwise would. What about that kid?

I guess I just don't get why having to pay your dues and learn a sport before you get full playing time is a bad thing.

They're 6 years old, what do you think they're out running windsprints at midnight to "Eye of the Tiger"?

Once they've all actually had some playing and practice time they'll begin to show separation in desire and skill.

At this point, everyone's learning and needs time to play and develop.

So no kid is better than the others? And no kid is worse than the others? If this is the case, then fine...play is commensurate with ability...but even at 6, there are kids who are good at things, and kids who aren't.

I get what you're saying - and agree that at that age, it's mostly about learning. My main view though, is that organized practice should be where you learn. Even at 6. You get to play in every game, but the mandate that every kid plays an equal amount seems overkill.

of course kids are better. and they'll score the goals and win the games. how much they play won't affect that.

if this was an upper elite top tier league of 6 year olds.. .then yeah- top guys play, next guys get steak knives.

That's fair...but how do you keep that kid motivated then? Honest question. Because if his "ability" is capped, the odds of him getting bored are a lot higher. It's akin to why sometimes really smart kids in school have problems b/c they're just bored and seek bad outlets for their energies.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I guess my thing is that if you don't want competition, don't call them games.

What should we call it when two different teams get on a field wearing their uniforms and try to score goals on each other?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

That's fair...but how do you keep that kid motivated then? Honest question. Because if his "ability" is capped, the odds of him getting bored are a lot higher. It's akin to why sometimes really smart kids in school have problems b/c they're just bored and seek bad outlets for their energies.

That kid generally is already motivated. The kids that suck are the ones that need help to be motivated.

 

[Fat Nick]

I guess my thing is that if you don't want competition, don't call them games.

What should we call it when two different teams get on a field wearing their uniforms and try to score goals on each other?

You call it a game...and you put your best kids out there to try and win.

If you're not trying to win, it's practice, drills, scrimmages, etc.

 

[El Floppo]

That's fair...but how do you keep that kid motivated then? Honest question. Because if his "ability" is capped, the odds of him getting bored are a lot higher. It's akin to why sometimes really smart kids in school have problems b/c they're just bored and seek bad outlets for their energies.

I coached 6 year olds last year in a rec league.

we had a bunch of kids who were of various athletic abilities, and then we had Nick (his name was actually Nick). Nick scored as many goals a game as he wanted- he was just another level above every kid in the league; great agility, quick, fantastic ball skills and soccer awareness. even when I put him in goal, he was just a great athlete and could stop most shots. little fella too.

we ran away with every game for the first part of the season- I talked with his parents and the league about putting him in the non-rec league, as his presence wasn't really doing anybody any good, even though he was young enough to enjoy going out and doing whatever he wanted against kids who didn't know how to tie their own shoes. parents didn't have the time or $ resources to commit to him playing in the elite team, so the league just shuffled him to the worst team. Let me rephrase- they were the worst team, until we lost Nick and they go him. then they were the best team and we were the worst team. at the least, Nick should have been moved to the older rec league- but they were full.

I think kids this young need to just go out and have fun, learning the sport along the way as best as possible. 7-8, I think they're better equipped developmentally (physically and emotionally) to handle the increase of commitment to playing more competitively if they have minimals. once they commit to playing more competitively- they commit to getting PT as deserved, IMO. utnil then, stay in the rec leagues where fun, basic development and participation are more important than winning (to me).

 

[Fat Nick]

That's fair...but how do you keep that kid motivated then? Honest question. Because if his "ability" is capped, the odds of him getting bored are a lot higher. It's akin to why sometimes really smart kids in school have problems b/c they're just bored and seek bad outlets for their energies.

That kid generally is already motivated. The kids that suck are the ones that need help to be motivated.

See...this is where I guess I disagree. He's motivated for now. But when he gets bored and realizes that "being good" doesn't get you anything as far as playing time, etc., it's far too easy to just stop applying yourself.

People (and kids) need challenges. It gets boring doing the same thing. If you can not study and get an A, why study? It's the classic NFL "Raw talent" example. These guys succeed on raw talent, but never are pushed to do more becuase they don't have to...then they get to a place where guys have work ethics and talent and they suffer.

 

[El Floppo]

That's fair...but how do you keep that kid motivated then? Honest question. Because if his "ability" is capped, the odds of him getting bored are a lot higher. It's akin to why sometimes really smart kids in school have problems b/c they're just bored and seek bad outlets for their energies.

That kid generally is already motivated. The kids that suck are the ones that need help to be motivated.

See...this is where I guess I disagree. He's motivated for now. But when he gets bored and realizes that "being good" doesn't get you anything as far as playing time, etc., it's far too easy to just stop applying yourself.

People (and kids) need challenges. It gets boring doing the same thing. If you can not study and get an A, why study? It's the classic NFL "Raw talent" example. These guys succeed on raw talent, but never are pushed to do more becuase they don't have to...then they get to a place where guys have work ethics and talent and they suffer.

there are steps between that and... say... 6 yo rec leagues.

 

[Fat Nick]

That's fair...but how do you keep that kid motivated then? Honest question. Because if his "ability" is capped, the odds of him getting bored are a lot higher. It's akin to why sometimes really smart kids in school have problems b/c they're just bored and seek bad outlets for their energies.

I coached 6 year olds last year in a rec league.

we had a bunch of kids who were of various athletic abilities, and then we had Nick (his name was actually Nick). Nick scored as many goals a game as he wanted- he was just another level above every kid in the league; great agility, quick, fantastic ball skills and soccer awareness. even when I put him in goal, he was just a great athlete and could stop most shots. little fella too.

we ran away with every game for the first part of the season- I talked with his parents and the league about putting him in the non-rec league, as his presence wasn't really doing anybody any good, even though he was young enough to enjoy going out and doing whatever he wanted against kids who didn't know how to tie their own shoes. parents didn't have the time or $ resources to commit to him playing in the elite team, so the league just shuffled him to the worst team. Let me rephrase- they were the worst team, until we lost Nick and they go him. then they were the best team and we were the worst team. at the least, Nick should have been moved to the older rec league- but they were full.

I think kids this young need to just go out and have fun, learning the sport along the way as best as possible. 7-8, I think they're better equipped developmentally (physically and emotionally) to handle the increase of commitment to playing more competitively if they have minimals. once they commit to playing more competitively- they commit to getting PT as deserved, IMO. utnil then, stay in the rec leagues where fun, basic development and participation are more important than winning (to me).

Valid points all around...but let me ask you this...do you think Nick would be a better player in 1 year by playing the 7-8 year-olds or by staying in the 6 y/o group and dominating? That's what I guess I get at with the whole challenge thing. It conveys an odd lesson to Nick that he gets pulled from a game and told to go sit down so some other kid can learn to kick a ball.

I'd still argue that if you need equal development at 6, and I'm fine with that, then you don't organize your league with games. You don't formalize it. Think of it likea soccer "camp," where you get different groups together and play, do drills, etc. No formal teams, no uniforms, etc.