In my experience, 90% of player movement is initiated by the family/player themselves in response to tryout ads, emailing the coach from the team web site, or approaching an existing team parent. NONE of the above are considered "recruiting" by WAGS rules are they?
All the reasons stated in the above conversation are "valid" in the eyes of the person making the move. No one moves teams without justifying it, so this conversation could go on forever. But, it's still not recruiting, unless it's the other teams' coach/parents actively seeking out other players, making first contact, and putting on the hard press.
Like it or hate it, player movement happens. What does really stink is the active recruiting. Coaches and parents who violate that rule by actively seeking out first contact with a potential player really need their head checked, and should not be involved in the game. The REAL teams attract all the players they need by reputation, integrity, and a proven track record.
Like I said, it seems to me that less than 10% of player movement is done as a result of actual recruiting, but I that's all I can speak to. It also seems WORSE at U9-U12 than in the older age groups. Sound right?
My other daughter no longer plays soccer, and her team was no better or worse for her staying, she was just worse. It was the wrong decision for her. And since when does 1 child make or break a team? If a team can't adjust to losing one player, regardless of their level, then there is a fundamental flaw in the team. Loyalty can only go so far until it starts hurting those that are loyal. You have to break when the time is right for the child, even if that's in the middle of the year.
And since when does 1 child make or break a team? If a team can't adjust to losing one player, regardless of their level, then there is a fundamental flaw in the team.
I said nothing about 1 child leaving and making or breaking the team. Don't delude yourself though to say that losing a player or two has no affect on a team--it always has some type of impact on a competitive team particularily if they are good players or even the team stars. Kids have very fragile ego's and many times do not understand why their teammates would leave them--they create all sorts of illusions and assumptions that DO have a greater impact on the team psyche.
girlsfan wrote:
Loyalty can only go so far until it starts hurting those that are loyal.
I have no idea what this even means??
girlsfan wrote:
You have to break when the time is right for the child, even if that's in the middle of the year.
May be your philosophy, but I always make my child live up to their commitments--I wouldn't want it any other way and I know they will be better for it in the long run...
Commitments to a team should be for a year. Loyalty is important. Honesty is important. Most of the players that leave teams mid-season have not been straight with their teammates and coaches. That is disprespectful.
In my experience, 90% of player movement is initiated by the family/player themselves in response to tryout ads, emailing the coach from the team web site, or approaching an existing team parent. NONE of the above are considered "recruiting" by WAGS rules are they?
All the reasons stated in the above conversation are "valid" in the eyes of the person making the move. No one moves teams without justifying it, so this conversation could go on forever. But, it's still not recruiting, unless it's the other teams' coach/parents actively seeking out other players, making first contact, and putting on the hard press.
Like it or hate it, player movement happens. What does really stink is the active recruiting. Coaches and parents who violate that rule by actively seeking out first contact with a potential player really need their head checked, and should not be involved in the game. The REAL teams attract all the players they need by reputation, integrity, and a proven track record.
Like I said, it seems to me that less than 10% of player movement is done as a result of actual recruiting, but I that's all I can speak to. It also seems WORSE at U9-U12 than in the older age groups. Sound right?
When you play on the division 1 teams the active recruiting is less pronounced. Obviously, a division 2 team isn't going to have much luck trying to recruit a division 1 player. And trying to recruit a fellow division 1 player would be risky.
But, having coached in the lower divisions, I'm shocked how brazen the recruiting has been. It gets especially strong when a team, in say division 3, starts to lose players. They'll take almost any player. And my players are all too flattered to be drawing their attention.
I don't mind having a player move to a high level team. It's a compliment for me. But, too many times they've taken players who weren't ready for it. And, if they'd consulted with me I would have told them just that. The rules are simple; you want a player, talk to the coach first. Otherwise, wait until summer.
Recruitment and player choice movement are two separate things. I do believe you should see out a whole season that does not equate to a whole year. Loyalty has to be a 2 way street. My daughter plays on a team that practices and plays with a sister team. Our teams absorbed the remnants of a dissolving team. Those girls took the remaining spots on the upper level team (regardless of abilities because they wanted to play together and it was all or nothing, nice of those girls ha…). At the end of this season our coaches have stated only 3 spots will be in jeopardy of the upper level team and that they do not really believe in movement. Meanwhile my daughter had been opportunities to play with higher level teams but choice to be loyal to the team she is on at that time, she saw a chance for advancement later on with the same coaches, they have shut that door to the all the girls who have played for them and they are even moving one of the practices so far away from were they were before to accommodate the other girls that my daughter can’t attend. How loyal have the coaches been? Should my daughter not move now? the commitment should come both ways or all bets are off , she would have been better off being recruited.
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: Loyalty
Loyalty is a two way street. If a coach has quit on a player and does not play them why should the player want to stay. The coach is a role model who should be molding the player his actions speak louder then words. Parents get up in arms because it is not their child. The parents also like that their child is getting more playing time while that family is subsidizing for the team. The coach picked that player and you have to play to learn the game. It also shows how good the coach is even if that player is not on the same level as some of their teammates This does not mean that in competitive soccer you cannot play your best that is why you go to travel and leave Rec. Learning how to work hard for a goal and being successful is a good thing. I know you hear parents say stay for the relationships they have built. Well if they are true friends going to another team should not matter. Friends support each other.
I agree that if a player is not playing then they should have a right to leave and look for another team. Some players are satisfied with sitting on the bench as long as they are getting sufficient training. Others want to play so they may need to find a team where they can play. I do not think there is anything wrong with a player leaving under these circumstances. In this situation the player is not hurting the team by leaving because she is not playing anyway.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 2 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
