Sometimes ya win and sometimes ya lose

[disneymyway]

I hope your daughter is the best player because she won't develop in your system. She will have no hope of ever making a competitive team.

Why is that? I haven't read every single post in this thread but I don't get the argument as I understand it at this point. Are you saying that a child must be in a noncompetitive league to be successful in a competitive league? I would disagree with that emphatically, but maybe that's not what you mean.

 

[declansdad]

Why is that? I haven't read every single post in this thread but I don't get the argument as I understand it at this point. Are you saying that a child must be in a noncompetitive league to be successful in a competitive league? I would disagree with that emphatically, but maybe that's not what you mean.

The op stated that only the best player should get the ball and the focus should be on scoring. If his dd is not the best player, she will not develop any skills.

 

[debster812]

Why is that? I haven't read every single post in this thread but I don't get the argument as I understand it at this point. Are you saying that a child must be in a noncompetitive league to be successful in a competitive league? I would disagree with that emphatically, but maybe that's not what you mean.

I think the point is, if you start playing 5 and 6 year olds in a highly competitive setting, many of the fundamentals are going to be overlooked in favor of always getting the ball to the one or two gifted athletes on the team. That does not always translate into being good soccer players later on, but in the very early years, athleticism will generally win out over technique. But, as these kids who lack the fundamentals age through their various programs, the kids who have been coached well, on the fundamentals, the techniques, teamwork, etc, will start to overtake them.

Yes, we all know sports is ultimately about competition, but at such a young age, it's about having fun, playing with friends, making new friends, picking daisies out of the field , and getting out in the fresh air. The competition, and winning is important mindset, can come later.

 

[5Slays]

And the kids always keep score. I think it's fine to keep score, as long as learning about the game and getting them to take something away from the loss is stressed. I hate seeing kids set up to think they will always win at everything. Some of the best lessons are learned from our mistakes.

I agree! What is frustrating to me is that at U-8 your team can qualify for the district tournament or even play in various tournaments that are offered by other leagues, but they can't keep score in the rec. games in their own league!

They don't play with a goalie, they don't techinically play positions or even offisides. Then all of a sudden, they are in U-10 with a goalie, positions and off-sides that is a whole lot to learn with just a few practices before the first game. Both age groups play short sided - they don't even get to play 11 on 11 until U-14.

 

[Sandy V.]

I think the point is, if you start playing 5 and 6 year olds in a highly competitive setting, many of the fundamentals are going to be overlooked in favor of always getting the ball to the one or two gifted athletes on the team. That does not always translate into being good soccer players later on, but in the very early years, athleticism will generally win out over technique. But, as these kids who lack the fundamentals age through their various programs, the kids who have been coached well, on the fundamentals, the techniques, teamwork, etc, will start to overtake them.

Yes, we all know sports is ultimately about competition, but at such a young age, it's about having fun, playing with friends, making new friends, picking daisies out of the field , and getting out in the fresh air. The competition, and winning is important mindset, can come later.

I agree with this assessment. My DD's competitive soccer team (at ages 10-11) was one who did very well the first two years in competitive ball because they had a few athletic "ball hogs" who had a strong leg, but nothing else. After that point, because we did not have good coaches who worked with the entire team regarding possession, ball control skills, etc., the team did only so-so, and eventually did quite poorly.

I also think that the point is that it appears that the OP appears perfectly willing to keep his DD out of ANY type of soccer at all if they aren't going to keep score. If he can't find a "competitive" league, then she just won't play. So the child misses out on even learning the fundamentals needed to play the game at all. What happens if where he lives, the soccer leagues don't keep score until the child is 8 or 9? Or even older? Does Dad hold her out that long? And if so, is she so far behind in basic skills that she doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of making it on the roster of one of the "winner" teams that I assume that Dad is going to want her on?

As I see it, that's what many find disturbing. At least I do.

 

[JimmyPicker]

sahd, go ahead and find a competitive league for your dd. But I'm guessing you'll be making a mockery of your child.

If she has never played at a competitive level before, she'll be in for a shock.

Basically, what happens is that if scoring is the ONLY thing that matters, the coach will play only the best players ("as it should be" are your own words about that).

Therefore, in all likelihood, since your daughter hasn't played soccer at all before (let alone competitively), she will not be prepared for the first game of the year, so if the coach plays her, she won't fair as well as some of the other kids (who probably played in non-competitive games when they were 4 or 5).

So your daughter will be sitting on the bench. If she's sitting on the bench, she'll never be able to improve her game, because she won't be playing. She won't be able to grasp the quickness of the game (because she'll have no practice), and without actually being in the game, she won't be able to get used to and adapt to the quickness of the game.

Therefore, with no playing time, she won't get better.

The non-competitive leagues, however, assure everyone playing time. So not only are they getting the fundamentals of the game during practices, they're also getting real game experience (which is a priceless way to learn the game).

It gives every child the oppurtunity to play and improve whereas the competitive leagues give only the best players the chance to improve.

Would you rather have a team of 20 well balanced players or a team of 3 superstars with everyone else feeling left out (one of whom will probably be your daughter)?

What happens when you go to three practices that week, and then you get up early on a Saturday morning to take your DD to the game, and she gets to play all of 87 seconds in the whole game? Will you feel like you've wasted 6 hours of your life so your DD can get 87 seconds in a game and the coach didn't feel like she was good enough, so he sits her on the bench?

If you're fine with that, then go ahead.

If you want your daughter to learn how to play the game with a chance of improvement, a non-competitve league might be your best bet.

But if you want to push her, and push her hard, that she must be the best, and winning is the only thing that matters, and you want to introduce her to the world of "you're not good enough, so you can't play" then put her in the competitive league.

 

[disneymyway]

The op stated that only the best player should get the ball and the focus should be on scoring. If his dd is not the best player, she will not develop any skills.

OK I disagree with the OP on this one, but only to a point. It can't be all equal all the time. A five year old is not too young to see that they aren't going to be the star all the time and to develop good sportsmanship towards the ones who are.

When parents go nuts about equal time on the field or wherever for everyone, I have a problem with that. I preferred settings with healthy competition for my daughter and I think she benefited from it.

 

[disneymyway]

I think the point is, if you start playing 5 and 6 year olds in a highly competitive setting, many of the fundamentals are going to be overlooked in favor of always getting the ball to the one or two gifted athletes on the team. .

I guess that would depend on what you mean by "highly competitive". We did summer swim for example when my daughter was 5 , and it was not all that competitive or intense but only the winners got ribbons and there were definitely winners and losers (the way it should be IMO).

 

[believe]

Both DDs have played competitive and non-competitive sports. The non-competitive were when they were younger. It was great since the coaches could stop the game to explain what the child was doing incorrectly. I honestly think that depending on the age of a child, I am not going to read every response to figure out who told your child's age, that having them stressed at a young age over winning and losing is not healthy. Honestly I think the majority of parents that want to know who wins or loses at a young age are typically the ones who are a bit 'too' involved in the game. There is enough in life to stress about. My children understand trying their best, whether someone is keeping score or not....they don't need to keep score to try their best. I also believe that when my child tries their best they are a winner...it doesn't matter what the score is.

 

[disneymyway]

Both DDs have played competitive and non-competitive sports. The non-competitive were when they were younger. It was great since the coaches could stop the game to explain what the child was doing incorrectly. I honestly think that depending on the age of a child, I am not going to read every response to figure out who told your child's age, that having them stressed at a young age over winning and losing is not healthy. Honestly I think the majority of parents that want to know who wins or loses at a young age are typically the ones who are a bit 'too' involved in the game. There is enough in life to stress about. My children understand trying their best, whether someone is keeping score or not....they don't need to keep score to try their best. I also believe that when my child tries their best they are a winner...it doesn't matter what the score is.

I don't really see it as about worrying about the score so much as it being unrealistic to think there isn't one.

Honestly, I think we're probably not that much in disagreement. I think the parents who think only the kids who are the top athletes should compete are pushing too hard and probably going to produce burned out kids and I think the parents who think all kids should be winners all the time are parents who can't stand to see their kids lose at anything.

Teach healthy competition. No, the score should not be made to be a big deal when kids are little, but there should be a winner and a loser and the winners learn to be good winners and the losers learn to be good losers. Kids won't shrivel up and die if they lose at something unless we teach them to.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

OK I disagree with the OP on this one, but only to a point. It can't be all equal all the time. A five year old is not too young to see that they aren't going to be the star all the time and to develop good sportsmanship towards the ones who are.

When parents go nuts about equal time on the field or wherever for everyone, I have a problem with that. I preferred settings with healthy competition for my daughter and I think she benefited from it.

I guess that would depend on what you mean by "highly competitive". We did summer swim for example when my daughter was 5 , and it was not all that competitive or intense but only the winners got ribbons and there were definitely winners and losers (the way it should be IMO).

I agree with both of these statements.

Both DDs have played competitive and non-competitive sports. The non-competitive were when they were younger. It was great since the coaches could stop the game to explain what the child was doing incorrectly. I honestly think that depending on the age of a child, I am not going to read every response to figure out who told your child's age, that having them stressed at a young age over winning and losing is not healthy. Honestly I think the majority of parents that want to know who wins or loses at a young age are typically the ones who are a bit 'too' involved in the game. There is enough in life to stress about. My children understand trying their best, whether someone is keeping score or not....they don't need to keep score to try their best. I also believe that when my child tries their best they are a winner...it doesn't matter what the score is.

I think you are wrong here. We are not "too involved" in the game. at 5 and 6 kids get the concept of winning and losing, and they should. You can't always be the best at everything. You also need something to strive for. Personal achievement is wonderful but incentive is good too. We always tell our kids that as long as you really did your best then that is all that matters. Do they hate it when they lose? Sure. BUT- it teaches them not only about sportsmanship, but also where they need to improve. If you have good coaches they work on that stuff at practice. Do we cheer our kids on? You bet we do!!!!!! Do we also cheer when the other teams make a good play? Yes. We do not berate or belittle anyone. The kids also know what the score is by age 5. Sorry but they can count. Healthy competition is great. Crazy Gypsy Rose Lee parents who are living the dream are an entirely different matter.

 

[Uuaww]

Too all the parents who say winning isn't important... You should make sure to get rid of any board games you might have where someone wins.

 

[Pigeon]

Non-competitive team sports are the only kind of team sports I'd let my kids play.

 

[padams]

Too all the parents who say winning isn't important... You should make sure to get rid of any board games you might have where someone wins.

No one here has said that winning isn't important. The point of the thread has been that sahd2one has said that his 5/6yo dd can only play in a competitive soccer league this spring where score is kept. His DW had signed the kid up for a soccer league where score is not kept at this age, and sahd2one said no. Lots of us tried to explain player development in soccer but sahd2one believes anything but winning and keeping score is for "wusses".

I hope he posts again in 5- 8 years so we can find out if his kid is plays any sports and how his relationship with his dd is going.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

No one here has said that winning isn't important. The point of the thread has been that sahd2one has said that his 5/6yo dd can only play in a competitive soccer league this spring where score is kept. His DW had signed the kid up for a soccer league where score is not kept at this age, and sahd2one said no. Lots of us tried to explain player development in soccer but sahd2one believes anything but winning and keeping score is for "wusses".

I hope he posts again in 5- 8 years so we can find out if his kid is plays any sports and how his relationship with his dd is going.

But at 5 and 6 what is wrong with having a winner and loser? Heck Candyland has winners and losers?

 

[JimmyPicker]

But at 5 and 6 what is wrong with having a winner and loser? Heck Candyland has winners and losers?

Nothing is wrong with having a winner and a loser. That's not what we're saying.

Learning how to win graciously and lose gracefully are important lessons, and no one is debating that fact.

However, in the game of Candyland, all of the children get to play, which will continue to make them better at the game of Candyland. In competitive sports, not all the kids do get to play, which means that the good get better (more playing time, and more in-game practice), and the not so good will continue to sit on the bench, unable to hone their skill.

The point that is being made is that at younger ages, the focus should be more about how to play the game correctly. You can't learn how to do that without playing in a real game (not just doing drills during practice). But at competitive levels (score keeping, trying to win), only the better players get that sought after playing time.

 

[disneymyway]

But at competitive levels (score keeping, trying to win), only the better players get that sought after playing time.

Maybe things have changed since my daughter was little but that was not the case in those days. At 5 years old she played soccer and swam and there were real games and meets but they were very laid back.

The better players/swimmers did play more, I suppose, but everyone got to play and swim. At that age around here anyway, it just didn't hit that level of intensity until they were into grade school, and then there were teams that were more intense than others. We didn't put our daughter into USS swimming until she was 10, for example, because that's pretty serious. Before then, it was just fun old summer swim, with winners and losers but no real pressure.

Do some areas not have that option? Do 5 year olds have to get on high pressure teams or nothing at all?

 

[Uuaww]

Nothing is wrong with having a winner and a loser. That's not what we're saying.

Learning how to win graciously and lose gracefully are important lessons, and no one is debating that fact.

However, in the game of Candyland, all of the children get to play, which will continue to make them better at the game of Candyland. In competitive sports, not all the kids do get to play, which means that the good get better (more playing time, and more in-game practice), and the not so good will continue to sit on the bench, unable to hone their skill.

The point that is being made is that at younger ages, the focus should be more about how to play the game correctly. You can't learn how to do that without playing in a real game (not just doing drills during practice). But at competitive levels (score keeping, trying to win), only the better players get that sought after playing time.

[edited]

What you are saying is that for youths, their are only non-competitive and competitive leagues. When I played in soccer as a kid they had something called "house" leagues where score was kept and kids won/lost but everyone got to play. The most any kid could sit out any single game is 1 quarter. That is how most youth leagues were growing up unless you made a "traveling" team. That is where it was play the best, sit the rest.

AYSO soccer leagues keep score and have these rules. It allows everyone to get a fair chance at playing while still keeping the game competitive.

Their actually exists a middle ground between what you are talking about.

 

[sahd2one]

[edited]

What you are saying is that for youths, their are only non-competitive and competitive leagues. When I played in soccer as a kid they had something called "house" leagues where score was kept and kids won/lost but everyone got to play. The most any kid could sit out any single game is 1 quarter. That is how most youth leagues were growing up unless you made a "traveling" team. That is where it was play the best, sit the rest.

AYSO soccer leagues keep score and have these rules. It allows everyone to get a fair chance at playing while still keeping the game competitive.

Their actually exists a middle ground between what you are talking about.

Thank you for so eloquently imparting what I was trying to share. This emphasis on ONLY non-competitive and ONLY competitive misses the point. I never let kids not play when I was coaching and everyone got a chance, but frankly the best, most into it got the ball the most. They were encouraged to get ahead.

I fully support the idea of teaching the kids fundamentals, but that always happened in practice, and I know from experience that 5-6 year old soccer is more like pack ball than anything else. However, a score was always kept. What I see happening now is in this age group there is no one keeping score and there are no one team that is the champion. Sorry, but if you are asking me to fork over my dollars, for practices and for uniforms and not having winners or losers, I can get my daughter together with her friends and play for free on the back lots near my home.

Again it seems to be all about parents not wanting poor Sally or Johnny to get their wittle feelings hurt because someone lost the game.

 

[debster812]

[edited]

What you are saying is that for youths, their are only non-competitive and competitive leagues. When I played in soccer as a kid they had something called "house" leagues where score was kept and kids won/lost but everyone got to play. The most any kid could sit out any single game is 1 quarter. That is how most youth leagues were growing up unless you made a "traveling" team. That is where it was play the best, sit the rest.

AYSO soccer leagues keep score and have these rules. It allows everyone to get a fair chance at playing while still keeping the game competitive.

Their actually exists a middle ground between what you are talking about.

This is still pretty much how youth recreational soccer leagues go. However, in our town, the really LITTLE kids (K-1st grades) there are NO scores, the coaches are on the fields with the kids during games, and are teaching during games and practices. Rest assured, EVERY kid knows who 'won' and who 'lost' but there is NO emphasis on winning/losing. As they get older, there are different paths in our league they can take.

sahd was painting with a very broad brush, and those of us with experience in youth and young kids playing soccer were offering our experiences, which he really has no interest in, so I'm wondering why he posted in the first place, and I'm wondering why I keep coming back to this thread.