Having fun, Player Development, or Stroking Egos
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:52 pm
Having fun, Player Development, or Stroking Egos through Team Domination
I am just absolutely amazed at how adults act these days when it comes to their kid’s involvement in youth sports. I am guilty of contributing to this since I read and post on these threads.
Why is it that Associations that have a depth of talent and huge numbers insist on one “A” team? Looking at Edina, their A team is dominant, along with all 6 B teams. My feelings are that it is suboptimal for the player’s development as both an athlete and a person to win all the time in a dominant fashion at such a young age. There is something to be said about having to go deep within yourself and to come from behind with the clock ticking. That is where lessons are learned that help the kids; they are not learned when everything is easy. Edina is not the only one in this boat as EP, Wayzata, WBL and others would dominate if given the opportunity. Conversely, why have an "A" team if the kids get dominated on a regular basis?
I think this level of domination works against them in the long run. That is why I think these large associations with high levels of talent should form their teams with a winning percentage of 60-70% in mind versus 90-100%. Edina could possibly field 2-4 A teams this year at the squirt level using this formula, Wayzata and EP probably 2. In fact, OMGHA has 2 A teams and adjust the B teams accordingly.
I do not buy the argument that player 1 would suffer if he is on a team with player 20-30 or 45. The fact is that there are not huge differences between 10 and 40 in these larger associations that dominate at both the A and B level. I think it would actually help these top players in the long run by trying to make the others better. In addition, how do the goalies face real game pressure when they are always up by 5+ goals?
The fact is that that many kids that show early promise usually mature early and have many more hours of practice than the other “average” kids (not always the case, but in general). Kids who dominate their peers at a young age often get frustrated and quit sports early when the others catch up, or even pass them by.
This is why associations should step in and do what is best for the kid in the long run. If you can support 2 or 3 “A” teams at a certain level, then do it. If you can’t support any, then don’t do it. Personally, I have played on a College National Championship team (different sport), and have been on teams that have lost more than they won. My experience is that you learn much more from dealing adversity than from winning all the time. Sadly, I think this is more about winning youth championships and stroking parent’s egos than about what is best for the kid in the long run.
I am just absolutely amazed at how adults act these days when it comes to their kid’s involvement in youth sports. I am guilty of contributing to this since I read and post on these threads.
Why is it that Associations that have a depth of talent and huge numbers insist on one “A” team? Looking at Edina, their A team is dominant, along with all 6 B teams. My feelings are that it is suboptimal for the player’s development as both an athlete and a person to win all the time in a dominant fashion at such a young age. There is something to be said about having to go deep within yourself and to come from behind with the clock ticking. That is where lessons are learned that help the kids; they are not learned when everything is easy. Edina is not the only one in this boat as EP, Wayzata, WBL and others would dominate if given the opportunity. Conversely, why have an "A" team if the kids get dominated on a regular basis?
I think this level of domination works against them in the long run. That is why I think these large associations with high levels of talent should form their teams with a winning percentage of 60-70% in mind versus 90-100%. Edina could possibly field 2-4 A teams this year at the squirt level using this formula, Wayzata and EP probably 2. In fact, OMGHA has 2 A teams and adjust the B teams accordingly.
I do not buy the argument that player 1 would suffer if he is on a team with player 20-30 or 45. The fact is that there are not huge differences between 10 and 40 in these larger associations that dominate at both the A and B level. I think it would actually help these top players in the long run by trying to make the others better. In addition, how do the goalies face real game pressure when they are always up by 5+ goals?
The fact is that that many kids that show early promise usually mature early and have many more hours of practice than the other “average” kids (not always the case, but in general). Kids who dominate their peers at a young age often get frustrated and quit sports early when the others catch up, or even pass them by.
This is why associations should step in and do what is best for the kid in the long run. If you can support 2 or 3 “A” teams at a certain level, then do it. If you can’t support any, then don’t do it. Personally, I have played on a College National Championship team (different sport), and have been on teams that have lost more than they won. My experience is that you learn much more from dealing adversity than from winning all the time. Sadly, I think this is more about winning youth championships and stroking parent’s egos than about what is best for the kid in the long run.
