Sometimes ya win and sometimes ya lose

[mum4jenn]

Must be from the South....he wrote "y'all!!!! LOL!!!

 

[sahd2one]

Must be from the South....he wrote "y'all!!!! LOL!!!

And I say it is WICKED cold outside too.

 

[padams]

If it is non-competitive, there is really no point to playing a team sport. I think it is wrong where everyone gets a trophy or that no one bothers to keep score. If I can find a competitive league then that is where she will play otherwise she will be fine.

It is bad enough that the public schools here do not do letter grades until 2nd grade. It just goes more to the wussification of America.

If you teach your dd that sports, school, and ultimately life is only about winning and losing, she is likely to be one unhappy kid (and eventually unhappy adult). If competition in sports and grades is so important to sahd, I am going to guess that 2nd place or a B won't be good enough for him. After all, it's losing.

There is a popular parenting philosophy (read the book Blessings of a Skinned Knee, can't recall author) that children should be allowed to fail so they can learn from that experience (as opposed to parents who always try to make things right for their kids). Sahd doesn't seem to be looking for that learning experience for his child however. He is too focused on the competition aspect of sports and school. I hope sahd can accept when his dd isn't the best at everything. A senior at our high school killed herself this fall because she was only ranked 4th in her class of 200, and she felt she hadn't lived up to her parents' expectations. I think sahd needs to get a job (presuming "sahd2one" refers to stay at home dad), and focus his competitive energy on the workplace, not his dd.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

I can't believe that I am actually going to say this but I sort of agree with the OP. No, winning isn't everything and at pre-school age it shouldn't even be a factor, but at school age I think a little competition is good. Hear me out before you flame though.
More and more we live in a society where everyone is great! Nobody isn't good at everything. It really is ridiculous. We strive for mediocrity. Now I am not saying that kids must win everything but if there is no winning and losing then what are they striving for? You can learn great skills and still feel good about them without being a winner everytime. We don't have to be diehard push our kids to the brink parents, but we can give them something to work towards. Once they are adults their employers are not going to cheer them on just because they made it to work. Not everyone gets a raise etc. Part of the winning and losing thing is teaching kids that as long as you work hard it really doesn't matter if you lose, but when you work so hard and you win boy does it feel good to have accomplished something. I hope that I am clear in what I am trying to say.

 

[padams]

I agree with you Mouse House Mama. Sahd2one, however, seems a bit obsessive about competition. He won't let his 5 or 6 yo dd play in a noncompetitive soccer league this spring. She can only play in a competitive one. Several of us soccer parents have tried to make the point that at that age, skill training is what is important. Many soccer clubs don't keep score at that age to focus on player development. No one has said she should never play competitive sports.

I just have to ask all of those with kids who play non-competitive, non-scoring sports, do any of ya'll have any Wii Games?

Sahd, you're missing the point. Of course, my kids have dozens of Wii games. My son is now 13 and plays very competitive soccer. He is one of the most competitive kids you could find. He plans to try out this year for the Olympic development program. He played in the UK last summer, and has been invited back to play in Europe this summer. Nonetheless, at his nationally ranked soccer club, they don't have the kids play competitive, scored games until they are 8yo. It's a soccer development thing. I am sure you can put your dd on a competitive YMCA team (usually parent coached but they keep score as young as 3). However, she likely won't have the skills to be compete by the time she is 10.

 

[luvsJack]

To say that there is no point to sports if you are not keeping score is a statement totally made from the standpoint of a spectator. My son learned so much from his days of playing sports, and I hope dd is learning the same things. Team work, dependability, striving to do the very best possible, going that extra mile, setting goals for himself and doing everything in his power to make those goals are all things he learned from sports. At no time in his athletic career did he ever not strive to be the best at what he did (even when they didn't keep score). This didn't come from wanting to win, it came from wanting to do his personal best.

Kids can get discouraged very easily. If a child is on a team that just can't win a game, and too much emphasis is put on winning; he/she will want to quit trying. That is one of the reasons for not keeping score.

 

[mumom95]

It is bad enough that the public schools here do not do letter grades until 2nd grade. It just goes more to the wussification of America.

I can see your issue with sports. My big problem with it is that if you don't have a winner and a loser, you don't teach children how to be gracious winners and gracious losers. It's almost like we are teaching our kids there is something wrong with losing and that we have to avoid losing at all costs. I think we should keep score, have a winner and a loser, and teach the kids that it's ok to not always win, teach them how to act when you do win, and how to act when you don't win. People can't be the best at everything, and losing a soccer game at age 6 isn't the end of the world for anyone, but the way it is now, we give kids that impression.

But I cannot see at all where you are coming from with the whole letter grade/ wussification of America thing. Grades at the elementary level aren't there for the kids benefit. They are there to inform the parents and the school of the kids progess. Whether you put an F, 4, -, or anything else that means the kid isn't performing to the level they should at that age, it all means the same thing. If a first grader comes home with a - sign and at the top of the paper it says a - means failing, does it really matter that it is a - and not an F? They mean the same thing. How is putting a - instead of an F wussifing America?

 

[JCJRSmith]

I have coached soccer from U9 to U16, both recreational and travel. If your DD is younger than 8, good luck finding a competitive league for her. U-9 and below (in some cases U10 and below) should be used to learn the fundamentals of the game. At that age the children do not know enough about the game and putting them in a competitive situation leads to them concentrating more on goal scoring than team play and fundamentals. Soccer is a team sport and in the older leagues, the competition will be there.

If you do find a competitive league below U9 (assuming your daughter is 8 or younger) be prepared for her to have to pass a tryout, and if she hasn't played before, I can just about promise you she won't make it. If your local league is associated with US Youth Soccer, and your daughter is starting at U9 and under they will be watching her (and all the other kids) to identify those who may move into travel competition earlier than others.

From personal experience I can tell you that until the kids are 11-12 years old, even playing travel soccer, win or lose they are more concerned att the end of the game with what treat they are getting rather than the final score. Personnally I think you are doing your daughter a disservice by holding her out of the league. She will have a lot of fun and make a lot of friends. She will have plenty of time to play competitively when she is older.

 

[minniecarousel]

Just another thing that sahd-one and I disagree on.

My sons are young men in their 20's. They started out playing p'nut league summer baseball (gasp! - they didn't keep score!) and soccer (under 5's or under 6 - can't remember which). That first year (or 2) of soccer we referred to (lovingly) as "bunch ball".

These boys had video games at a very early age (primitive as they were). They understood the concept of winning and losing. But they were learning the games they were physically playing - and having fun. Younger DS caught on quicker, since he had spent time watching his older brother play.

They went on to play organized sports where they kept score, the younger one played HS sports. I am proud to say that today they are well-adjusted young men. It doesn't look like they were harmed by not keeping score the first year or two of playing. In fact, they may have taken longer to understand the sport if we had kept them out until the age where they kept score.

 

[Tumblwd501]

I just have to ask all of those with kids who play non-competitive, non-scoring sports, do any of ya'll have any Wii Games?

Heck someone "loses" in boxing! Bowling, Golf, Baseball and Tennis where the losing player(s) practically sulk!

Or do you keep your kids from playing those as well?

The concept of winning and losing is JUST as important as how to play the game. Even at age 5-6!

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but it seems like a lot of PP in this thread are not saying that kids shouldn't learn the importance of winning/losing or success/failure and how to cope with it. I believe a lot of us are saying that at an early age, a non-competitive atmosphere is more conducive to learning and developing the skills of the game or learning about teamwork. And that once that foundation is laid, go ahead and introduce more complicated skills and concepts, as well how to win and lose.

Although, if as the OP has stated, he believes that winning and losing are the only important things to be taken from sports, then he will obviously disagree and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for the Wii comparison, I don't believe that's a valid analogy. I believe learning in video games is generally a solo activity, so a child's actions don't really impact other's ability to learn. In a team setting, if a coach and or player is only worried about winning at this early an age group, it's too easy for one or two dominant players to take over the game and leave the rest of the team frustrated at the lack of playing time or touches of the ball. You might argue that this teaches a "survival of the fittest" type attitude and would help kids to be more aggressive or what not. But if the children are still learning the basic concepts of the game, they are more likely to just give up then try harder as they are still learning the basics skills which will help them get better. I think most of us would agree that kids in this age group are not known for their patience. lol

 

[declansdad]

I just have to ask all of those with kids who play non-competitive, non-scoring sports, do any of ya'll have any Wii Games?

Heck someone "loses" in boxing! Bowling, Golf, Baseball and Tennis where the losing player(s) practically sulk!

Or do you keep your kids from playing those as well?

The concept of winning and losing is JUST as important as how to play the game. Even at age 5-6!

In the concept of learning the skills is much more important than the concept of winning and losing at a young age. Sure the kids keep track of the score (to a certain degree); but without learning the fundamentals first, they will never get any better.

My ds is 7 and is playing basketball for the first time. There is no score kept but the players have a good idea, as do the parents. The kids who are only worried about scoring are not learning anything else and have no clue as to what to do when they can get to the basket. The others however, are learing about movement, passing, and teamwork.

 

[Stacerita]

DW wants to put DD on a soccer league this spring. I found out they do not keep score. I said no thanks, but not interested. It is like those "sports" where everyone gets a trophy.

Yuck!

When my DD first wanted to play sports, I put her in a non competive league to learn. She loved it, but quickly out grew it. She changed to a more competetive league and loved it. She loves working hard and winning. She learned to be a gracious loser at times as well. Its part of life I think.

I think fundamental leagues that teach kids are great. But I don't think kids should be in those leagues forever. They need to move on and grow. Those leagues don't always do that.

In life there will be losers and winners. Not everyone will get picked for a team, not everyone will get accepted to the same college and not everyone will be offered the job position. Its a part of life.

 

[tar heel]

I'm going to take a wild guess that the OP is probably not an athlete himself or he would understand that skill building is the first step in learning a game. He definitely has no experience with young kids sports. I think he's picturing a bunch of 6-year-olds with NO soccer experience passing, blocking and acting like they know what they're doing. (Soccer isn't as funny as T-ball, though, which is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen!)

OP, they have to learn HOW to play first. You're also going to find modified rules for the younger kids -- is that going to be a problem for you, too? The fields will be shorter and you may even have coaches on the field in the middle of games. Offside penalties will probably come later. I honestly can't remember all the modifications in each sport -- too many kids and too many sports at my house.

 

[sahd2one]

As for the Wii comparison, I don't believe that's a valid analogy. I believe learning in video games is generally a solo activity, so a child's actions don't really impact other's ability to learn.

I disagree. The Wii games I quoted definitely are player against player. Even teams of bowlers or teams of tennis players. Yes DD loses and she wins.

Scoring is important from the beginning and most seem to imply that you cannot have both. It just seems to have this feel good "everyone wins" attitude in the interest of what is fair that is really pretty awful in my book.

 

[declansdad]

I disagree. The Wii games I quoted definitely are player against player. Even teams of bowlers or teams of tennis players. Yes DD loses and she wins.

Scoring is important from the beginning and most seem to imply that you cannot have both. It just seems to have this feel good "everyone wins" attitude in the interest of what is fair that is really pretty awful in my book.

Do you have any experience as a coach?

 

[sahd2one]

Do you have any experience as a coach?

Yep. My ex's son two years of soccer. We didn't put up with this non-scoring everyone gets a medal BS. Things have changed for the worse in the past 20 years.

 

[declansdad]

Yep. My ex's son two years of soccer. We didn't put up with this non-scoring everyone gets a medal BS. Things have changed for the worse in the past 20 years.

If you mean that more kids have better fundamental skills than they did 20 years ago, they sure did.

You are still missing the point. It isn't about everyone getting a medal; it is about teaching the skills they need to be successful without worrying about the final score.

By the way, I have been coaching sports now for 20 years so you see I have some experience as well.

 

[sahd2one]

You are still missing the point. It isn't about everyone getting a medal; it is about teaching the skills they need to be successful without worrying about the final score.

I posit you can do both. I think not worrying a final score defeats the purpose of playing.

And yes, he had tryouts and no he didn't make the best teams, but he strived to make them next time. I realize that not all kids are going to make the best teams, but striving for being the best is what is important and that includes scoring AND the fundamentals of the game.

I see it all around and in coming up what I call the wussification of America. Gymnastics where everyone gets a medal, swimming where everyone gets a trophy and on and on.

But to me and my family it IS about winning and losing and how to handle each and neither be a sore loser NOR a sore winner. Without points, the game is quite literally pointless!

 

[declansdad]

I posit you can do both. I think not worrying a final score defeats the purpose of playing.

And yes, he had tryouts and no he didn't make the best teams, but he strived to make them next time. I realize that not all kids are going to make the best teams, but striving for being the best is what is important and that includes scoring AND the fundamentals of the game.

I see it all around and in coming up what I call the wussification of America. Gymnastics where everyone gets a medal, swimming where everyone gets a trophy and on and on.

But to me and my family it IS about winning and losing and how to handle each and neither be a sore loser NOR a sore winner. Without points, the game is quite literally pointless!

If you are only worried about the final score, the only people who get the ball are the good players. If you are only coaching to win, you will make sure that only your best players gets the ball. You are missing the opportunity to develop other players who may become better than the little johnie/sally that is a great player at the age of six.

Once kids have the basic skills, make the leagues more competitive, as they should. Until then, you focus on the skills.

 

[debster812]

I posit you can do both. I think not worrying a final score defeats the purpose of playing.

And yes, he had tryouts and no he didn't make the best teams, but he strived to make them next time. I realize that not all kids are going to make the best teams, but striving for being the best is what is important and that includes scoring AND the fundamentals of the game.

I see it all around and in coming up what I call the wussification of America. Gymnastics where everyone gets a medal, swimming where everyone gets a trophy and on and on.

But to me and my family it IS about winning and losing and how to handle each and neither be a sore loser NOR a sore winner. Without points, the game is quite literally pointless!

OK, so if keeping score is the only thing that matters, and without points, the games are rendered pointless (according to you), HOW do you propose that young children actually LEARN the fundamentals, and how to play these games?

Our town's soccer program runs several different programs.

Fall In House Recreational--2nd grade-8th gradescores kept, but no standings and no playoffs
Fall In House Instructional--Kindergarten & 1st graders, no scores, no standings, no playoffs
Spring Instructional--K-4th grade only. No scores, no standings, no playoffs
Spring Competitive--highly competitive, scores, standings, playoffs, and championships.

By the time our recreational and instructional players have graduated to the U10 division, they have a fair understanding of how the game is played, and some basic technique.

Our way certainly does not work for everyone, but then again, neither does yours. Some kids progress at different rates, and levels, and the "superstar" 6 year old, will likely be run of the mill, or out of the sport by the time they are 13. The average 6 year old, progresses at a natural rate, and can usually play the game as long as they like. This of course does NOT apply to World Class athletes, and those soccer players with the ability to qualify for State Cup, ODP, and U17 and U19 national teams.