SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SCYS Presidents Medal Cup & Recreation Cup

Surely doesn't make sense to have to travel on a separate weekend to play a game that has no hope of gaining advancement, no. I'm ok with the two-game-per-day format we have; in most cases it gets the job done in one weekend, it provides multiple opportunities for players to compete and be seen, and it makes fitness and endurance a factor in overall winning potential--which would seem to support the idea that it is the best and most dedicated athletes who will prevail in the end.

If you want fitness and endurance to be a factor in the match, why not limit substitutions? How about seven subs allowed so everyone can play.....but no re-entry?

True, but as has been discussed on the Disney thread, limiting substitutions also limits exposure...which can be a negative thing in a tournament where one of the reasons to be there is to see and be seen. Unlimited substitution gives a coach a chance to give more players more chances at playing time without having to weigh long-term consequences of giving them a shot to perform.

I would not advocate limiting substitutions in a showcase or tournament, only in league and cup play.

Coach P - Well said!

OMG - parents/players are paying to play club ball, plus hotel/tournament/uniforms/gas/coaches fees and they want to limit subs!! Why? This rule can only translate into limited playing time for the non-starters! How stupid can this be?

I agree with not limiting subs in league and cup play. Players come out to get training, gain experience, and enjoy competition. You can't do those things while sitting on the bench. Of course, teams are in this to compete, and the best players are going to get the majority of the field time, but having unlimited subs gives coaches a lot more flexibility to give other players the chance to come on the field, test themselves, and then come back off if necessary. If we start putting limits on subs at this level, coaches will have to think long and hard before giving a second-string player a chance to step on the grass--which means fewer players will be getting opportunites to have the experience they're coming out for. I know I would be much more reluctant to pull a starter off the field if there were no re-entry...which means someone on the bench would be sitting there a lot longer, if they got in at all. That just doesn't seem fair in the spirit of development and opportunity.

The rest of the world limits substitutions so that fitness is part of the game. In the US, we can just shuffle anybody in and out at any time to give someone a rest, and play high pressure for 90 minutes because conditioning isn't a factor.

How about we limit roster sizes to 15 or 16? No re-entry and EVERYONE has to play? When the coach chooses the player at tryouts in May, the coach is obligated to play that player in every match. If a starter has to come off the field for the last 20 minutes of a match so that the #15 player on the roster has to get playing time.....so be it.

As for player development and game experience, how does the second-string wrestler at 125 pounds ever "develop"? Does he sub in for the third period for the starter? Soccer still provides the opportunity for a substitute to play.....not true with wrestling.

Agree with Hurst. A player should not be on the roster if the coach is 'afraid' to put them into a game. It shouldn't be just a matter of a parent being able to write a check.