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

As for wrestling, that's sort of apples and oranges...wrestling, although matches are decided by "team" points, is really an individual sport. It only takes two wrestlers of similar nature to provide a good practice that simulates real-match conditions. Not all soccer teams can put together practices that allow players to learn to interact in real-game-style, 11v11 scrimmages...so the only way for them to truly gain that experience is in inter-team match play.

Now you're proposing a system that would make development of weaker players even more unlikely in a lot of situations. So now the ones who, at tryouts in May, don't look like someone I would want to put on the field in every match...shouldn't even be selected? Under the current system, players can be given opportunities as they earn them without posing serious risk to the performance of the team as a whole. A coach in a developmental league does have a split obligation--to the success of training the individual players, and to the success of the performance of the team. Less-experienced players can start off on the roster, train with the rest of the team, and earn their playing time bit by bit as they develop. They can sub in for short intervals to test their development, and have that chance more often when the coach knows he can put the starters back in if it isn't working out yet. I've had players who may have been a liability on the field at the beginning of the season turn into valuable assets by the end. I see no reason to put a coach in the position of having to choose between accepting a weaker player on the team knowing he/she will play every game and may create a weak spot for the team, and denying that same player the opportunity to have a chance at all. As for fitness, for most teams, the key players will be on the field for almost all of the match even with the opportunity to sub. If those players can make it through 85-90 minutes of a match, rest a couple of hours, and step back out to do it again the same day, I'd say fitness is definitely being emphasized. At levels of play where development and competition intersect, playing time should be earned by the athletes, not mandated or restricted by the rule book.

One thing people from the larger metropolitan areas need to understand is that it is not as easy to field teams in less populated areas; therefore, the talent level will not be as balanced as one might hope. An association has to create teams from the kids that are available in the area. A few of the better Florence players travel to Columbia to play, but many parents (and players) do not want to spend the time and money traveling to Columbia to practice. In Florence, most of our Classic teams are made up of a small group of “Challenge” level players, a larger group of true “Classic” level players, and maybe even a few players that should be playing recreation soccer. It may not be the perfect situation, but we have been able to field competitive Classic level teams. The alternative is that 125 Florence area kids would not be playing competitive soccer.

Coach P,

I stand corrected, didn't realize Europe allowed unlimited substitution at the youth level.

Hurst,

You said, “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.” Are you serious? You honestly believe that every team, at every age level, that goes out there on the field, is able to play high-pressure ball for 90 minutes? In all the years I’ve been involved with soccer, I would have to say that more often than not, the overall level of conditioning of a team HAS affected the outcome of the game to SOME degree. Some matches, it has come down to which team was still fighting HARD by the end of the game, but some matches, it was which team was still able to just RUN by the end of the match. RARELY do I see matches where every player on a team is able to play high-pressure the entire match.

There are WAY too many factors at the younger levels of soccer (especially in this state) to force as many limitations as you suggest. I wouldn’t even know where to start with a list of the negatives.

If your team is skilled, and your team is deep, and your team is well-conditioned........

Don't you think you can successfully play high pressure for 80 or 90 minutes with the added benefit of being able to shuffle kids in and out?

I'm aware of at least one girls varsity high school program in the northern part of the state who has gotten pretty good results with this strategy for the past four or five years. I've seen a couple of club teams put it to good use as well.

"If your team is skilled, and your team is deep, and your team is well-conditioned..." you could compete just fine (barring injuries) with a roster of only eleven.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. What strategy are you talking about?

Yes, I "think you can successfully play high pressure for 80 or 90 minutes with the added benefit of being able to shuffle kids in and out." I thought YOU were arguing earlier AGAINST unlimited substitutions.

I AM against unlimited substitutions in regular season and state cup matches. For tournaments and showcases I am for unlimited substitution.

If you have 11, good, well-conditoned players you should be able to succeed and you should be rewarded with a good result. If you are playing against a team of 18 who shuffles them in and out, in an effort to get a result through high-pressure, it messes up the beauty and flow of the game (with all the stoppages for subs).

Now, if that team is fit, and can be successful playing high-pressure with 11 starters and three to five (pick a number) subs, with no re-entry, I tip my hat to them.

I agree that a team with a deep bench will have a definite advantage in being able to play a higher-pressure game from start to finish. It doesn't necessarily mean that the team with more players will be able to maintain higher effective pressure, though, if the team with fewer on the bench is well-conditioned and well-disciplined. There is an element of strategy involved in matches against superior numbers. As someone who coaches a U18 classic girls team that more often than not has 11 -13 available players in any given match (and two matches per day) I have to say I actually enjoy the challenge of playing against the numbers advantage. Some of the best player AND character development I've seen has come from finding ways to win even at a disadvantage. I guess restrictions to enforce some degree of artificial equality are fine for some sports--after all, that way of thinking led NASCAR to such fan favorites as restrictor plates and the COT--but offhand I can't think of any other high-school-age-level team sport that restricts substitutions and allows no re-entry.

Sub restrictions may be ok for premier and maybe challenge teams (I still have reservations), but at the PMSL level, I say let 'em play. It should be about getting as much experience and field time for each player as possible within the bounds of effective competition. When you start talking about limiting subs, further limiting roster numbers, etc., we're also talking about limiting opportunities for young people who want to come out and enjoy playing the game.

I'm sorry if I just don't "get" it, but to me, the beauty of the game at this level isn't about uninterrupted flow and undisturbed aesthetics; it's about what the opportunity to get on the field and play does for the young people involved, so I'm not a big fan of restrictions that limit chances for participation. If another coach shows up with 18 players, I don't feel the need to force him not to let some of them play just because I only managed to bring 12. On the flip side, if I only have 12, I've made one sub, and there's an injury, I don't want to have to play short because the one player on my bench is restricted by a no re-entry rule.

And if a team with small numbers can learn to condition, pace and position itself to stand up to a high-pressure attack from a team with greater numbers and unlimited subs, or if a coach can bring a team with enough talented, well-trained players to sub continuously without creating weak spots in the field that can be exploited, then heck...I tip my hat to them too.

Coach Chass,

I agree that we should maximize every player's opportunity to play so I'm probably guilty of not practicing what I preach in this case. If there is no re-entry, and I have 15 on the roster, then I'm subbing four at the half so everybody gets at least half a game. Of course that leaves you very vulnerable and if someone goes down with a second-half injury you are going to have to play short.

I'm not totally adamant about this position and I'll certainly agree that the current rules allow a coach much more flexibility.

Call me old-school. I'm not a fan of the designated hitter and I don't like inter-league play (although I am in favor of the wild card).